Hegemony Good Practice | Grand Strategy | The United States

Hegemony Page 1 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Hegemony

Hegemony Bad - Defense Hegemony....................................................................................................................................................................................................1 2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense.......................................................................................................................................................................3 2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense ......................................................................................................................................................................4 2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense.......................................................................................................................................................................5 Ext 1. Limited Influence................................................................................................................................................................................6 Ext 4. No Transition Wars ............................................................................................................................................................................7 No Great Power Wars...................................................................................................................................................................................8 Heg Inevitable 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................................10 Heg Dead – 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................11 Heg Dead – 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Heg Dead – Fiscal Overstretch...................................................................................................................................................................14 Heg Dead – Dollar .....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Heg Dead – Dollar .....................................................................................................................................................................................16 Heg Dead – Military Weakness...................................................................................................................................................................17 Heg Unsustainable – 1NC...........................................................................................................................................................................18 Heg Unsustainable – 1NC...........................................................................................................................................................................20 Ext. Heg Unsustainable..............................................................................................................................................................................21 Ext. Heg Unsustainable – Counterbalancing..............................................................................................................................................23 Hegemony Bad – War.................................................................................................................................................................................24 Hegemony Bad – War.................................................................................................................................................................................25 Heg Bad – Terrorism...................................................................................................................................................................................26 Ext. Heg Causes Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................................28 Ext. Heg Causes Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................................29 Heg Bad – Prolif..........................................................................................................................................................................................30 Ext. Heg Causes Prolif................................................................................................................................................................................32 Ext. Heg Causes Prolif................................................................................................................................................................................33 Hegemony Bad – Prolif ..............................................................................................................................................................................35 Heg Bad – China Shell................................................................................................................................................................................36 Ext. Heg Causes War With China...............................................................................................................................................................37 AT: Heg Good – China.................................................................................................................................................................................38 Heg Bad – Interventionism.........................................................................................................................................................................39 Heg Bad – Interventionism ........................................................................................................................................................................40 Ext. Heg Causes Interventionism...............................................................................................................................................................42 Hegemony Bad – Economy........................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: Heg Good – Economy/Free Trade.........................................................................................................................................................45 AT: Heg Promotes Democracy...................................................................................................................................................................46 AT: Heg Promotes Democracy...................................................................................................................................................................47 Heg Bad – Disease .....................................................................................................................................................................................48 Offshore Balancing 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................49 Offshore Balancing Good – Solves War......................................................................................................................................................51 Offshore Balancing Good – General...........................................................................................................................................................52 Offshore Balancing Good – Middle East.....................................................................................................................................................53 Offshore Balancing Good – War.................................................................................................................................................................54 Multipolarity Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................55 Multipolarity Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................................................56 AT: Obama Changes Hegemony................................................................................................................................................................57 AT: Obama Changes Hegemony................................................................................................................................................................58 ***HEGEMONY GOOD***............................................................................................................................................................................60 Internal Links – Human Rights Credibility Kt Heg......................................................................................................................................61 Heg Sustainable – General ........................................................................................................................................................................62 Heg Sustainable – General.........................................................................................................................................................................63 Heg Sustainable – General.........................................................................................................................................................................64 Heg Sustainable – General.........................................................................................................................................................................66 AT: Decline Inevitable 2AC ........................................................................................................................................................................67 AT: Decline Inevitable 2AC.........................................................................................................................................................................69 Heg Sustainable – Latent Power.................................................................................................................................................................71 Heg Sustainable – China.............................................................................................................................................................................72 Heg Sustainable – Obama..........................................................................................................................................................................74 Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis........................................................................................................................................................75 Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis........................................................................................................................................................77 Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing...................................................................................................................................................78 Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – China......................................................................................................................................80 Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – China/Russia...........................................................................................................................81 Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – Russia.....................................................................................................................................82 Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – Venezuela, Iran, Russia..........................................................................................................83 Heg Sustainable – AT: Iraq.........................................................................................................................................................................84 Michael, Sam & Megan 1

Hegemony Page 2 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW
AT: Counterbalancing – Too Costly............................................................................................................................................................85 AT: Counterbalancing – Benevolent Heg....................................................................................................................................................87 AT: Counterbalancing – Too Far Ahead......................................................................................................................................................88 AT: Iraq Kills Heg........................................................................................................................................................................................89 AT: Multipolarity Inevitable........................................................................................................................................................................90 Offshore Balancing Fails.............................................................................................................................................................................92 Offshore Balancing Fails.............................................................................................................................................................................93 Heg Impact Authors – Khalilzad.................................................................................................................................................................94 Heg Impact Authors – Ferguson.................................................................................................................................................................95 Heg Impact Authors – Kagan......................................................................................................................................................................96 Heg Impact Authors – Kagan......................................................................................................................................................................98 Heg Impact Authors – Thayer...................................................................................................................................................................100 Heg Impact Authors – Brookes.................................................................................................................................................................102 Heg Impact Authors – Lieber ...................................................................................................................................................................103 Heg Good – Transition Wars.....................................................................................................................................................................104 Heg Good – Transition Wars.....................................................................................................................................................................105 Heg Good – Decline  Reintervention.....................................................................................................................................................107 Heg Good – Prolif Shell.............................................................................................................................................................................108 Ext. Heg Solves Prolif...............................................................................................................................................................................109 Heg Good – Terrorism Shell......................................................................................................................................................................111 Ext. Heg Solves Terrorism........................................................................................................................................................................113 AT: Heg Causes Terrorism........................................................................................................................................................................114 Heg Good – Democracy ...........................................................................................................................................................................115 Ext. Heg Solves Democracy.....................................................................................................................................................................116 Heg Good – Economy ..............................................................................................................................................................................117 Ext. Heg Solves Economy.........................................................................................................................................................................118 Heg Good – China War.............................................................................................................................................................................120 Decline Causes Asian Instability..............................................................................................................................................................121 A2: Heg Bad – Intervention......................................................................................................................................................................122

Michael, Sam & Megan

2

Hegemony Page 3 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense

1. Heg fails – it’s ineffective at maintaining U.S. interests

Layne, 6 – Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute, (Christopher, Financial Times" America cannot rely on power alone," August 24th, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f7bb5fb2-330c-11db-87ac-0000779e2340.html)

Hegemony, however, is not omnipotence. There are several reasons why the US can successfully apply its power to some objectives but not to others. First, the US is better at deterrence - preventing other states from attacking the US or its allies militarily - than it is at "compellence"- using its power coercively to force other states to adopt policies that run counter to their preferences and to act in accordance with Washington's dictates. The fact that compellence is difficult explains why the US has been unsuccessful in persuading Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programmes. Second - as the Iraq morass illustrates - in "asymmetric" conflicts such as insurgencies, outside forces are at a big political and psychological disadvantage notwithstanding their superiority in conventional military power over indigenous fighters. The US should have learnt from its own ÂÂexperience in
Vietnam (or the French experiences in Indochina and Algeria) that there are good reasons why big states lose small wars (as Professor Andrew Mack of the University of British Columbia put it in a widely cited article). In these wars, the balance of motivation invariably lies with the insurgents who, instead of needing to prevail militarily, need only to survive and prolong the conflict sufficiently to chip away at the outside power's political will.

As counter-insurgent wars drag on, and the costs rise, political debate in the external power inevitably focuses on why it should continue to expend blood and treasure in a war that is not vital to security. Also, in such conflicts, occupying powers invariably find themselves on the wrong side of one of the most powerful forces in international politics: nationalism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's ability to attain its
objectives is also limited by the religious and cultural divides separating the Islamic world from the west.

Third, America's own ideological militancy, rooted in the Wilsonian tradition of liberal internationalism, hamstrings the effectiveness of US diplomacy by dividing the world neatly into good guys and bad guys - or, as the Bush administration would have it, between "good" and "evil". One reason why the US

has failed in the Middle East is because of its refusal to engage in direct diplomacy with Syria and Iran - both of which have important stakes in the outcome of security issues in the Middle East, including those involving Israel's relations with the Palestinians and with Hizbollah in Lebanon. Ending evil may be a worthy ambition for ministers of the cloth, but it is a foolish one for ministers of state. There is much more to diplomacy than simply talking to one's friends. The art of diplomacy lies in dealing with those who are rivals and adversaries, and finding ways of resolving outstanding differences. By preferring regime change to diplomatic engagement with "evil" states such as Iran and Syria, the US has tied its own hands in exercising hegemonic power to resolve - or at least ameliorate - the conflicts in the Middle East.

Finally, America's hegemonic power often seems illusory because it is applied to unattainable objectives such as nation-building and promotion of democracy. US neo-conservatives and liberal imperialists alike seem to think that the world is a piece of clay and that the US can mould other nations and cultures in its own image. It is naive to think that America's democratic values can be transplanted to flourish in countries that have no indigenous democratic tradition and that lack the social, economic and political foundations on which America's domestic political system rests. Although the US has failed repeatedly in such efforts, it keeps trying - most recently in Iraq (and Afghanistan). In both
countries it is failing yet again.

Although the US remains dominant in international politics, its power is not infinite. What is needed in
and distinguish between desirable objectives and attainable ones. If the US is to be perceived as powerful rather than powerless, it

Washington is the wisdom to differentiate between those foreign policy goals that are attainable and those that are not. The US must be careful not to overreach itself, and Washington needs to understand that a wise grand strategy must balance ends and means,

must refrain from intervening abroad in pursuit of unrealisable goals, and will have to learn that the intricacies of international politics cannot be reduced to a simplistic Manichean struggle between good and evil.

Michael, Sam & Megan

3

Some sort of new structure of global governance will be essential to reflect redistribution of power. the United States could imagine maintaining this hope. With American forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and mounting troubles in Iran and Pakistan. That could aggravate transatlantic tensions. We cannot afford to keep our previous promises. Africa and the rest of Latin America.. why will others pass up opportunities to take advantage of America’s overstretched grand strategy? Since the end of the cold war. The World in 2009. nor a soft landing. American leaders have consistently claimed the ability to maintain a significant forward-leaning military presence in the three major regions of the globe and. the next 20 years of transition. US no longer has the ability to maintain forward deployments around the globe – economic capacity prevents Pape. It will not be an easy transition.ft. Nearly half have been shifted to Iraq and elsewhere. Nearing 20 percent. Japan. January 27th. and provide a form of guidance and regulation. one pole in the world will be Europe.” the NIC report says. 9 – Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (Robert. The harsh reality is that the United States no longer has the economic capacity for such an ambitious grand strategy.are fraught with risks. could it really wage a protracted struggle in Asia as well? And as the gap between America’s productive resources and global commitments grows.” January 22nd. Less certain will be the influence of individual countries in the Middle East. http://www. India. the United States has all but gutted its military commitments to Europe. “Empire Falls. the “multipolar” look of the future world order seems most likely. Sam & Megan 4 . manage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.. as occurred in 1914-18 when an earlier phase of globalisation came to a halt. Russia and Brazil are all likely to be players at the top table. and G8 including Russia.we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown of the international system. to wage two major regional wars at the same time..aspx?id=20484) the cold-war framework of significant troop deployments to Europe. National Interest Online. http://www.html) If the consequences of a prolonged economic recession are unpredictable.Hegemony Page 4 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense 2. The transition to multipolarity is inevitable – There will be a fundamental redistribution of power Financial Times. “Despite the recent financial volatility. If a large-scale conventional war between China and Taiwan broke out in the near future. are likely to be early casualties of the economic crisis. older industrialised nations cannot handle the global crisis. Little wonder that Russia found an opportunity to demonstrate the hollowness of the Bush administration’s plan for expanding NATO to Russia’s borders by scoring a quick and decisive military victory over Georgia that America was helpless to prevent. However. “Historically.org/Article. Apart from the US and China. one must wonder whether America would significantly shift air and naval power away from its ongoing wars in the Middle East in order to live up to its global commitments.nationalinterest. Asia and the Persian Gulf is coming unglued. If the United States could not readily Today. The Group of Seven (G7) leading industrialised nations. Michael.. “Risks rise in shift to a Multipolar World”. 09 (Quentin Peel. With 30 percent of the world’s product. reducing our troop levels far below the one hundred thousand of the 1990s. if necessary.com/cms/s/0/c76ec956-ec79-11dd-a534-0000779fd2AC. Without China and India at the table. it cannot. emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones.” 3.

In this view. No impact to the transition – international order accommodates rising powers and nuclear weapons prevent war Ikenberry 08 professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University (John. The U. they predict. the drama of China's rise will feature an increasingly powerful China and a declining United States locked in an epic battle over the rules and leadership of the international system. the typical features of a power transition.S. the United States did not simply establish itself as the leading world power. two things are likely to happen: China will try to use its growing influence to reshape the rules and institutions of the international system to better serve its interests. China does not just face the United States. meanwhile. Sam & Megan 5 .will live on.S. it faces a Western-centered system that is open. leadership. The rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition. but the Western order -. as the Western-oriented world order is replaced by one increasingly dominated by the East. It built an order that facilitated the participation and integration of both established great powers and newly independent states.especially the declining hegemon -. Michael. it is a drama that will end with the grand ascendance of China and the onset of an Asian-centered world order. Foreign Affairs. The result of these developments. After World War II. The historian Niall Ferguson has written that the bloody twentieth century witnessed "the descent of the West" and "a reorientation of the world" toward the East. will be tension.) Today. Realists go on to note that as China gets more powerful and the United States' position erodes.will start to see China as a growing security threat. This unusually durable and expansive order is itself the product of farsighted U. in short. has made war among great powers unlikely -. (It is often forgotten that this postwar order was designed in large part to reintegrate the defeated Axis states and the beleaguered Allied states into a unified international system. China will rise. however.if managed properly -.-Chinese power transition can be very different from those of the past because China faces an international order that is fundamentally different from those that past rising states confronted. with wide and deep political foundations. The nuclear revolution. The Rise of China and the Future of the West Can the Liberal System Survive?.Hegemony Page 5 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 2AC/1NC Hegemony Defense 4. That course.eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining hegemonic states. Jan/Feb) Some observers believe that the American era is coming to an end. and conflict. And as the world's largest country emerges not from within but outside the established post-World War II international order. is hard to overturn and easy to join. China can gain full access to and thrive within this system. Today's Western order. integrated. distrust. is not inevitable. and other states in the system -. It led in the creation of universal institutions that not only invited global membership but also brought democracies and market societies closer together. And if it does. and rule-based.

strategy. must also be addressed.S. Yet. Moreover. The most damaging aspect is the notion that the United States bullies the world to meet its own interests while disregarding those of other states or regions. It is therefore encouraging The execution of to see the emergence of a new strategic discussion within the United States that recognizes the fact that nonstate actors such as al Qaeda "do not pose an existential threat" to the United States. and of the broader war on terrorism for that matter. especially the rise of China. The United States is now often perceived as a not-so-capable and sometimes insecure country despite its powerful hard-power economic and military assets.S. The administration has become a prisoner to the newly emergent threats that it faces. has damaged Washington's capacity for leadership to a great extent.S. The Washington Quarterly.S. especially in the Middle East. Volume 31.S.S. Overreactions based [End Page 167] on the overestimation of such threats were the fundamental reasons underlying the failure of the current U. Number 4. The failure of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism has had an enormous impact on U. reassessment of the threats and challenges must be the first step toward restoration of the U. Various challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. It has reduced U. Return from 9/11 PTSD to Global Leader. Michael. standing in the Asia Pacific. influence among the policy elites and the general publics of nations throughout the region.4 Al Qaeda rejects the expansion of U. Autumn 2008 the Iraq war. Sam & Megan 6 . Limited Influence US power has eroded – US has limited influence and its security guarantees are no longer credible Kato 08 bureau chief of the American General Bureau of the Asahi Shimbun. and has proven that it can inflict enormous pain on the United States and its friends and allies and disrupt regions and the globe through terrorist attacks. the challenges facing the United States do not come only from Islamic extremism or the Middle East. values. A calm and objective predominance. (Yoichi. reputation. it possesses neither the strategic vision nor the capability to topple the existing world order and U.Hegemony Page 6 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext 1.

With the exception of Europe. Not all "frenemies" are democracies in the Western sense. Asia’s largest slum sits adjacent a thriving economic hub. Their goal is to develop the economy and correct social inequalities. (Wolfgang. Other similarities are likewise revealing. 10/02/2008) Who are the decisive powers in this new world order? The United States. as well as of the Gulf states. In the megalopolis Mumbai. Michael.can bring us further. while France and Great Britain are permanent members? Needed are to new forms of international governance: in a world with diminishing resources and accelerating climate change. The current financial crisis has shown how deep their ties have already become. These countries assure their people that they can shape the coming global order and provide for their future welfare. Within the new nondemocratic world powers. that need not be cause for pessimism. they produce a system more free and just than the one they inherited. It is absurd that Italy belongs to the G-8. Brazil.Hegemony Page 7 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext 4. optimism. In order for the next ten years to be a success. Russia. but their respective visions of the future can differ greatly. Where the former get the upper hand. the international forum of Deutsche Bank. but not China or Brazil. Brazil and the European Union surely count among them. and compromise will have to play a central role in a multipolar world. states might be tempted to pursue their own interests in order to gain short-term advantages. nor are they friends. for example. A potential "clash of futures" looms on the horizon of the multipolar world. The challenge will be devise a new international framework and an organized balance of interests." competitors for the world’s scarce resources. if skeptical. They know that where there are slums there will be "failing cities" and "failing states. The successes of Singapore and China. prove that states need not be democratic to guarantee their people a high standard of living. A person driving across Russia encounters areas of both staggering wealth and miserable poverty. These countries are neither enemies of one another. some of its population struggles to earn a decent living. But. New forms of international cooperation. No Transition Wars Multipolarity solves and the transition will be peaceful – resource scarcity and shared threats create incentives for cooperation Nowak 08 spokesman of the executive board of the Alfred Herrhausen Society." New alliances that set countries against one another will not be able to solve the challenges of the 21st century. And what sort of meaning can a global security council have when India. Interestingly. second and third worlds. these countries are growing ever closer together. and the European Union are left out. productive elites are replacing parasitic elites. the past ten years provide much cause for pessimism. they are "frenemies. Even in the United States. we will need to be fortified by a credible. Sam & Megan 7 . RISE OF THE REST The Challenges of the New World Order. consultation."change through rapprochement" not a "clash of futures" -. Certainly. Only a common future -. the richest country in the world. each of these countries contains within it aspects of the so-called first. India. China.

and the United States. at most. Unlike during the days of empire building in the nineteenth century. Moreover. business. the status quo is much more difficult to overturn. such as Iran and Russia. far from cultivating causes for territorial dispute with its neighbors. particularly in energy and raw materials. are already substantial players and stakeholders in an ensemble of global institutions that make up the status quo.that reduce the likelihood of severe conflict while creating strong imperatives for cooperative problem solving.) In the case of China.Hegemony Page 8 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW No Great Power Wars Great power war is obsolete – cooperation is more likely than competition Deudney and Ikenberry 09 Professor of Political Sceince at Johns Hopkins and Albert G. China. this does not obviate their more basic dependence on and commitment to the WTO order. are configured in such a way that rising states can increase their voice only by buying into the institutions. the contemporary liberal-centered international order provides a set of constraints and opportunities -. stark "us versus them" cleavages become more difficult to generate and sustain. The domestic viability of these regimes hinges on their ability to sustain high economic growth rates. states today cannot translate great asymmetries of power into effective territorial control. The pathway to modernity for rising states is not outside and against the status quo but rather inside and through the flexible and accommodating institutions of the liberal international order. investment. The prospect of such great losses has instilled in the great powers a level of caution and restraint that effectively precludes major revisionist efforts. Also unlike in the nineteenth century. these changes in the economy of violence mean that the international system is far more primed for peace than the autocratic revivalists acknowledge. not least the UN Security Council (in which they have permanent seats and veto power). Most important. Jan/Feb) . nuclear weapons have transformed greatpower war from a routine feature of international politics into an exercise in national suicide. Vietnam. As the Harvard political scientist Alastair Iain Johnston has argued. would pose for the Chinese communist regime daunting economic costs. the diffusion of small arms and the near universality of nationalism have severely limited the ability of great powers to conquer and occupy territory inhabited by resisting populations (as Algeria. Foreign Affairs.have increasingly joined the world community.particularly upwardly mobile and educated elites -. The dependence of autocratic capitalist states on foreign trade and investment means that they have a fundamental interest in maintaining an open. The fact that these autocracies are capitalist has profound implications for the nature of their international interests that point toward integration and accommodation in the future. Not only have citizens of autocratic capitalist states are participating in a sprawling array of transnational educational. It is not surprising that China made major domestic changes in order to join the WTO or that Russia is seeking to do so now. as its foreign policy establishment has internalized the norms and practices of the these states joined the world economy. and now Iraq have demonstrated). Those invoking the nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the extent to which war as a path to conflict resolution and great-power expansion has become largely obsolete. Simple comparisons between China and the United States with regard to aggregate economic size and capability do not reflect the fact that the United States does not stand alone but rather is the head of a coalition of liberal capitalist states in Europe and East Asia whose aggregate assets far exceed those of China or even of a coalition of autocratic states. Michael. contrary to what the revivalists describe they can hope for loose hegemonic relationships that require them to give something in return. but they remain fundamentally dependent on a liberal international capitalist system. and shared problems of interdependence. both domestic and international. international diplomatic community. most notably China and Russia. These social and diplomatic processes and developments suggest that there are strong tendencies toward normalization operating here. the most striking features of the contemporary international landscape are the intensification of economic globalization. which in turn is crucially dependent on international trade and investment. Many other global institutions. But in the twenty-first century. With all of the great powers possessing nuclear weapons and ample means to rapidly expand their deterrent forces. Finally. today's autocracies may be illiberal. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University (Daniel and John. such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Myth of the Autocratic Revival :Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail. China's ruling elite has also been socialized. has instead sought to resolve numerous historically inherited border conflicts. rule-based economic system. the autocratic states are unlikely to become champions of an alternative global or regional economic order. and avocational networks. suggesting an alignment of interests against petroleum-exporting autocracies. Autocratic China is as dependent on imported oil as are democratic Europe. and production networks across international borders raises even more the costs of war. today the density of trade. Given their position in this system. to take one of the most plausible cases of a future interstate war. Afghanistan. The autocratic revival thesis neglects other key features of the international system as well. Sam & Megan 8 . the WTO may act as a vital bulwark against protectionist tendencies in importing states. which so serves their interests. but their people -. warfare among these states has truly become an option of last resort. potentially revisionist autocratic states. let alone spoilers intent on seriously damaging the existing one. because of its extensive dependence on industrial exports. As individuals are socialized into the values and orientations of these networks. Japan. thickening institutions. In large and growing numbers. These states share a status quo state. Taken together. This bleak outlook is based on an exaggeration of recent developments and ignores powerful countervailing factors and forces. The overall structure of the international system today is quite unlike that of the nineteenth century.of pushes and pulls -. Furthermore. The prospects for revisionist behavior on the part of the capitalist autocracies are further reduced by the large and growing social networks across international borders. Compared to older orders. rising states faced an international environment in which they could reasonably expect to translate their growing clout into geopolitical changes that would benefit themselves. Indeed. (Although these autocratic states do pursue bilateral trade and investment deals. In the nineteenth century. India. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan. acting like a satisfied there is an emerging set of global problems stemming from industrialism and economic globalization that will create common interests across states regardless of regime type.

like other developed countries. the conditions of the twenty-first century point to the renewed value of international integration and cooperation. Sam & Megan 9 . Like the United States. thus placing a further premium on political integration and cooperative institution buildin Michael. and emerging resource and environmental interdependencies together undercut scenarios of international conflict and instability based on autocratic-democratic rivalry and autocratic revisionism. the thickening of international transactions and institutions. global threats that no state will be able to solve alone. Its rapid industrialization and consequent pollution means that China. the consumer association created during the oil turmoil of the 1970s. The declining utility of war.Hegemony Page 9 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW common interest in price stability and supply security that could form the basis for a revitalization of the International Energy Agency. In fact. Resource scarcity and environmental deterioration pose g. The emergence of global warming and climate change as significant problems also suggests possibilities for alignments and cooperative ventures cutting across the autocratic-democratic divide. will increasingly need to import technologies and innovative solutions for environmental management. Analogies between the nineteenth century and the twenty-first are based on a severe mischaracterization of the actual conditions of the new era. China is not only a major contributor to greenhouse gas accumulation but also likely to be a major victim of climate-induced desertification and coastal flooding.

S global power position. surpassed that of any leading state in modern history.” Michael. for example. forces near their homelands. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany. cumulated over many decades. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Similarly.S. including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. 27. unassailable military dominance over the sea. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is. especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible. and no other nation comes close. The size of the U. 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. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. in 2004 U. outmanned. France. 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. military. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years.Hegemony Page 10 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Inevitable 1NC Heg is sustainable – US has dominance in all areas of power and its not going anywhere Brooks and Wohlforth 08 Associate Professor of Government in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College and Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department of Government (Stephen and William. As Barry Posen puts it.1 shows. institutional. As Kennedy sums up. While other powers could contest U. Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U. the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. Sam & Megan 10 .S. and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. Japan. and Britain combined. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries. far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War. and space. and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. for example. 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.” 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. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica. As table 2. at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. 1950-70. World Out of Balance.5 percent. the United Kingdom was outspent. nothing. power have changed since those words were written in 2002.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. technological. and other wellsprings of national power. The United States’ share of world GDP in 2006. never both. by restricting their access to economic. pg 2731) “Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power. and technological requisites of military power. “Being Number One at great cost is one thing. 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.” Though assessments of U. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing. make any effort to match U. they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic. with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War. Its massive investments in the human.S.S. and political assistance…. The United spends more on defense than all the other major military powers combined. and most of those powers are its allies.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005. air.

Sam & Megan 11 .S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates now speaks of a "multipolar world. an international affairs specialist at Boston University and author of this year's The Limits of That there is some sort of big change is widely accepted. "It's not simply that Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. including governments like China's and sovereign wealth States since its invasion of Iraq." says Bacevich. "We're not going to finance your improvidence indefinitely .. Critics point to the hazards inherent in racking up some $10 trillion in public debt--exacerbated now by fresh doubts over American solvency. China's growth has hummed along at nearly 10 percent annually--for three decades. eroding America's pre-eminence run deeper. Without any contraction of its daunting military firepower or the size of its economy. financing.S. The dollar's special role has been critically important. The once slumbering giant of South America. India. as Yale historian Paul Kennedy pointed out in his 1988 work.S. including its privileged position as issuer of the world's favored reserve currency. Fingar labeled U. Kishore Mahbubani. other nations are bound to assume more influential positions. shaking our selfconfidence. pre-eminence since World War II a "truly anomalous situation." One other vulnerability also looms larger than in the past: energy imports. 10/29) This time. even mainstream.S. a former U. fiscal gap. aims to restore China to the status it had enjoyed for many centuries: the world's largest economy. argues in his book The New Asian Hemisphere. Freeman Jr. promoting a model competing with that of the United States-authoritarian capitalism. he added. It has also allowed Americans to maintain a notoriously low net savings rate. Something else is different about the current debate over U. it was 58 percent. over decades and centuries--are the norm. the United States imported 37 percent of oil consumed. the U. has also found a surer path to prosperity that is broadening its influence and enabling a military buildup." warns Andrew Bacevich. China's "peaceful rise. "The crisis will confirm in the minds of Asians not to be so fiscally dependent on Uncle Sam." In future competition. predictions of a "Pacific century" or an Asian one look more plausible.Hegemony Page 11 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Dead – 1NC Heg is over Omestad 08 Former Associate Editor of Foreign Policy. the U.S. China's growth is fueling a rapid expansion of military capabilities and. "The era of Western domination has run its course. Some analysts conclude that if the reality of America's power position has changed. Last year. the new financial shock is rattling a load-bearing pillar of American strength--its role as global financial superpower. courtesy of massive sales of oil and natural gas. Russia is undergoing a resurgence of uncertain duration. "It's different this time. Along with the economic recovery of Japan and the growth of what used to be called the "tigers" of South Korea and Southeast Asia. At the same time. global military activities and domestic spending without sparking inflation or driving up the interest cost of such monumental borrowing. There are shifts elsewhere. diplomat in China and Saudi Arabia and president of the Middle East Policy Council. dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. the military will be "the least significant" factor. so must American attitudes. China contributed but 1 percent of the world's GDP and its trade. W." Those foreign investors. the International Institute for Strategic Studies referred to "the profound loss of authority suffered by the United Fingar. Its invasion of neighboring Georgia and support for separatist regions Michael. China takes top billing on the list. some rapidly. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. When Jimmy Carter was urging energy conservation in 1980. The Feds are selling about half the new national debt to foreign investors. however. shifts in economic and military power--played out slowly. It allows the federal government to affordably cover budget and current account deficits. "We should disenthrall ourselves from the idea that the well-being and security of the United States can only be attained by seeking to maintain primacy. Foreshadowing a conclusion of a coming report called "Global Trends 2025." Indeed." as officials call the strategy.S. might not turn out as well for America. That has bridged the yawning U. Hood Award for Diplomatic Journalism (Thomas. Back when economic reforms began in 1978. The world geopolitical map is being redrawn: Several powers are rising." In its 2007 annual survey. In any case." he writes. because the trends we've run into a rough patch. decline. too. Brazil. Is America Really on the Decline? US News and World Report. in effect. intelligence community's top analyst." Diminished dominance. will conclude. Says historian Kennedy. A recent Goldman Sachs report has bumped up the time by which China's economy is expected to surpass America's in size to 2027. dollar. suggests Chas. it reached 5 percent of world GDP and 8 percent of trade. That is three times the global average. last year. Winner of the Edwin M." some analysts worry. the world's most populous democratic state. Asia is returning to its historical norms. in effect. Yet more troubling was the vista painted by Thomas funds like those in Abu Dhabi and Kuwait." he said in September that "American dominance will be much diminished over this period of time" and "will erode at an accelerating pace with the partial exception of the military. is overcoming its past weaknesses.

Hegemony Page 12 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW there may mark a new period of strategic challenges to the West. Sam & Megan 12 . the European Union. in fits and starts. Meanwhile. continues to evolve into a more coherent force in global Omestad continues… Michael.

Hegemony Page 13 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Dead – 1NC Omestad continued… affairs that.S. It sat badly. For the first time since the Cold War. with its tight alliances. China. argues that the new era will devolve into "nonpolarity.S. as a 27-nation collective. a group with a decidedly non-U. As well. especially in Latin America. Others anticipate an even more complex diffusion of global power. and even unsavory militias. with some glee that the German magazine Der Spiegel ran a cover story this fall titled "The Price of Arrogance" and depicting the Statue of Liberty with its flame extinguished. friends and foes alike saw a lecturing. as a group. global standing--at least in the eyes of the world--has been hastened by a foreign policy routinely portrayed overseas as one of arrogance and hubris. The Gulf Arab states. These include a variety of regional and global organizations. the Singaporean analyst and former diplomat. The world's energy suppliers--especially those along the Persian Gulf--are also gaining strength. foundations. and even Latin America with trade deals. is East Asia's leading protecting power. in some cases." he says. Biggest loser. through political-military alliances or. "Nobody will charge a hill with us anymore. When one country's overweening power ignites concern. approach to world affairs-no hectoring about human rights and democracy there." For instance. Sam & Megan 13 . "arguably the greatest transfer of wealth from one group of countries to another. And though the United States. too. in a nonconfrontational mode dubbed "soft balancing. is the United States. But the rise of other powers doesn't tell the whole geopolitical story. nongovernmental groups. moralistic American style of leadership." says Freeman. an analyst with the New America Foundation. and the four Central Asian states have formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. some of the others search for ways to counterbalance it. seemingly. he predicts a "geopolitical marketplace" in which developing countries are courted by and align flexibly with one of the new "Big Three": the United States. Fairly or not. go-it-alone instincts of the Bush administration--though tempered in its second term--came into play on issues from climate change to Grand ambitions for a democratic Middle East went unfulfilled. the European Union. drug cartels. The Americans championed the war on terrorism with a "with us or against us" zeal. The world supply of deference to the lone superpower is flagging--a likely drag on the next presidency. and terrorist networks. The international justice to arms control. The charge of U. president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Bush administration official. The erosion of U." director of the New America Foundation's Geopolitics of Energy Initiative." There have been other body blows to American prestige. It was. appeals to left-leaning governments aloof from Washington. The maneuvering reflects the sort of games nations have virtually always played.S." Michael. and the regulatory laxity and greed that underlie this year's financial crisis all served to cloud the picture of American pre-eminence. Richard Haass. the Middle East. with the likely aim of blunting U. Reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and what many see as encroachments on America's civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism have taken a toll. Parag Khanna. unilateralism--stoked above all by a costly and unresolved war of choice in Iraq--has fortified a troubling caricature of America as a militaristic and hypocritical behemoth that frittered away the outpouring of global goodwill after 9/11." in which nation-states lose influence and a fractious assortment of nonstate players wield more clout. Russia. and China. it is not part of a new regional grouping that is becoming more influential. That can happen frontally. may emerge as the world's most important investor. calls the flood of money from oil consumers to producers The "big loser. Old allies felt a cool wind from Washington. Mahbubani. more gingerly. Flynt Leverett. Iran and its regional ambitions will get plenty of sustenance. Its outreach. The inability to bring closure to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (especially the lengthy bungling of the Iraq occupation). is using arms sales and energy commerce to revive old connections in the developing world. and aid with few strings attached. already presents the world's largest economy. In The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. multinational corporations.S. Russia. involvement and. "We exited the Cold War with amazing prestige and an automatic followership. sees the unipolar moment giving way to a different global game. the initial feeble response to Hurricane Katrina. They are forging connections without U. Chinese students are questioning whether they should study American-style business. The damage to America's reputation has weakened its "soft power"--the attractiveness abroad of its society and politics.S. a Russian naval fleet is heading into Latin American waters for exercises with Venezuela. influence. energy investments. marvels at "a new level of incompetence in America that is puzzling the world. China is reaching deeply into Africa.

Hegemony Page 14 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Heg Dead – Fiscal Overstretch

Spending overstretch and increases in operational costs ensure the demise of American power and military presence

Flournoy and Brimley 08 president and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and a former principal deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and a fellow at CNAS (Michele and Shawn, The Defense Inheritance: Challenges and Choices for the Next Pentagon Team The Washington Quarterly Volume 31, Number 4, Autumn 2008)

The next president will simultaneously face enormous budgetary pressures due to slowing economic growth; the spiraling costs of mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as baby boomers begin to retire; and growing public and congressional intolerance for increases in the federal deficit.17 Because defense expenditures represent about one-half of U.S.
discretionary spending, it will likely be in the crosshairs of those looking to cut federal spending to pay for entitlements, cut the deficit, or both. Additionally,

alarm bells are ringing throughout the U.S. defense community as the realization sinks in that the Defense Department is facing the makings of a "perfect storm." Runaway operations and maintenance costs due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; soaring personnel obligations; enormous reset, recapitalization, and modernization needs; intentional growth

in the size of the Army and Marine Corps; and the eventual decline of wartime supplemental spending will all combine to require the Pentagon and Congress to make some very difficult choices.18 Defense procurement expert John Christie points out that "[g]rowth

rates for unit costs of major weapons systems are greater than those for total defense procurement, total defense spending, and the gross domestic product." If these historic trends are not addressed, he argues, U.S. armed forces will eventually cease to be "a significant influence in world events because of shrinking force structure."19 Put another way, the Pentagon risks its very relevance by continuing to spend more and more acquisition dollars for fewer and fewer systems. To take but three examples, the costs of the Army's "Future Combat Systems" family of armored vehicles have escalated
54 percent to $131 billion since its inception; the Air Force's F-22A Raptor tactical fighter unit costs have escalated 177 percent while the number to be purchased has decreased by 71 percent; and before the recent decision to cut the program, the Navy had underestimated the cost of its planned purchase of 10 advanced DDG-1000 [End Page 62] destroyers by 60 percent, from $17.4 billion to $28 billion.20 The Defense Department cannot afford to continue hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars because of its broken acquisition system.

Michael, Sam & Megan

14

Hegemony Page 15 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Heg Dead – Dollar

Hegemony has collapsed – Failing dollar proves

Hedges, 09 – Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute, Lecturer in the Council of the humanities, Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University, 2002 Pulitzer Prize Winner, B.A. Colgate University, M.S. Harvard University (Chris, TruthDig, “The American Empire is Bankrupt,” June 14th, 2009, http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt/)

This week marks the end of the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency. It marks the start of a terrible period of economic and political decline in the United States. And it signals the last gasp of the American imperium. That’s over. It is not coming back. And what is to come will be very, very
painful. Barack Obama, and the criminal class on Wall Street, aided by a corporate media that continues to peddle fatuous gossip and trash talk as news while we endure the greatest economic crisis in our history, may have fooled us, but the

rest of the world knows we are bankrupt. And these nations are damned if they are going to continue to prop up an inflated dollar and sustain the massive federal budget deficits, swollen to over $2 trillion, which fund America’s imperial expansion in Eurasia and our system of casino capitalism. They have us by the throat. They are about to squeeze. There are meetings being held Monday and Tuesday in Yekaterinburg, Russia, (formerly Sverdlovsk) among Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other top officials of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The United States, which asked to attend, was denied admittance. Watch what happens there
carefully. The gathering is, in the words of economist Michael Hudson, “the most important meeting of the 21st century so far.”

It is the first formal step by our major trading partners to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If they succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds. The United States will begin to resemble the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. Obama, endowed by many with the qualities of a savior, will suddenly look pitiful, inept and weak. And the rage that has kindled a handful of shootings and hate crimes in the past few weeks will engulf vast segments

of a disenfranchised and bewildered working and middle class. The people of this class will demand vengeance, radical change, order and moral renewal, which an array of proto-fascists, from the Christian right to the goons who disseminate hate talk on Fox News, will assure the country they will impose.

The U.S. no longer has a lead in competitiveness – countries are not investing in the dollar.
Hudson, 09 – President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (Michael, Global Research, “De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13969) For starters,

the six SCO countries and BRIC countries intend to trade in their own currencies so as to get the benefit of mutual credit that the United States until now has monopolized for itself. Toward this end, China has struck bilateral deals with Argentina and Brazil to denominate their trade in renminbi rather than the dollar, sterling or euros,3 and two weeks ago China reached an agreement with Malaysia to denominate trade between the two countries in renminbi.[4] Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad explained to me in January that as a Muslim country, Malaysia wants to avoid doing anything that would facilitate US military action against Islamic countries, including Palestine. The nation has too many dollar assets as it is, his colleagues explained. Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan of the People's Bank of China wrote an official statement on its website that the goal is now to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations.”5 This is the aim of the discussions in
Yekaterinburg.

Michael, Sam & Megan

15

Hegemony Page 16 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Heg Dead – Dollar

The Unipolar era is over – De-dollarization

Hudson, 09 – President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (Michael, Global Research, “De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13969)

An era therefore is coming to an end. In the face of continued US overspending, de-dollarization threatens to force countries to return to the kind of dual exchange rates common between World Wars I and II: one exchange rate for commodity trade, another for capital movements and investments, at least from dollar-area economies. Even without capital controls, the nations meeting at Yekaterinburg are taking steps to avoid being the unwilling recipients of yet more dollars. Seeing that US global hegemony cannot continue without spending power that they themselves supply, governments are attempting to hasten what Chalmers Johnson has called “the sorrows of empire” in his book by that name – the bankruptcy of the US financialmilitary world order. If China, Russia and their non-aligned allies have their way, the United States will no longer live off the savings of others (in the form of its own recycled dollars) nor have the money for unlimited military expenditures and adventures. US officials wanted to attend the Yekaterinburg meeting as observers. They were told No. It is a word that Americans will hear much more in the future.

Michael, Sam & Megan

16

but pursued ambitious objectives in all three major regions at the same time—waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A healthy appreciation of America’s shrinking share of world economic production is a fact of life and important changes in U. Still.S.S. but in Since the cold war. our situation by American leaders may lead to policies that could mitigate. parts of the world). even to academicians like Dartmouth’s William Wohlforth and Stephen Brooks. To be sure. Michael. For the past eight years. From public intellectuals dominance of American power. while the ultimate foundation of American power—the relative superiority of the U. Like so many great powers that have come and gone before. grand strategy are necessary to prevent the decline in America’s global position from accelerating. solutions to each of them individually and all of them collectively will be heavily influenced by America’s reduced power position in the world. France. fairly short. policies they oppose and that the United States will increasingly face harsh foreign-policy choices.S.” January 22nd. further decline in the foreseeable future.S. National Interest Online. America’s declining power means that the unipolar world is indeed coming to an end. but is so relatively more powerful than any other country that it can reshape the international order according to American interests. all believe the principal feature of the post-cold-war world is the unchallengeable The United States is not just the sole superpower in the unipolardominance school’s world. dominance in the international system have encouraged American policy makers to act unilaterally and seize almost any opportunity to advance American interests no matter the costs to others. 9 – Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (Robert. For nearly two decades. Simply maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources. There is also good reason to think that. virtually discounting the possibility that Germany. the period of U. http://www. al-Qaeda’s new sanctuary in western Pakistan. Sam & Megan 17 .org/Article. Iran’s continued nuclear program and Russia’s recent military adventure in Georgia are high-priority issues. Most important.Hegemony Page 17 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Dead – Military Weakness Hegemony is dead – overambitious military goals and economic weakness Pape. “Empire Falls. the United States has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments. China and other major powers could seriously oppose American military power. Although the immediate problems of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. like Charles Krauthammer and Niall Ferguson to neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan. If present trends continue. economy in the world —has been in decline since early on in the Bush administration. Russia. those convinced of U. if not rectify. This is simply no longer realistic.S. that major powers will increasingly have the strength to balance against U. we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell for American hegemony. seeking to denuclearize North Korea and expanding America’s military allies in Europe up to the borders of Russia itself. seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood—the Americas—but also in Europe and Asia. our policies have been based on these flawed arguments. growing government debt. without deliberate action. along with the oil-rich Persian Gulf (as well as other recent years American leaders have pursued far more ambitious goals than merely maintaining the status quo.nationalinterest. The Bush administration has not just continued America’s traditional grand strategy.aspx?id=20484) AMERICA IS in unprecedented decline. the fall of American power will be more precipitous with the passage of time. thus far. relative decline has been. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq War. our own hubris may be our downfall. increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today’s world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology.

Although the growth was small. and German and Japanese aggression in World War II were all driven by declining powers seeking to use war to improve their future security. As China rises. the Austro-Prussian War. All lost control of events they thought they could control. Whether or not this will be another period of great-power transition coupled with an increasing risk of war will largely depend on how America can navigate its decline. Under the circumstances. when China’s economic star began to rise in the 1990s. in the run-up to the Iraq War. . Though these worlds depict potential power. [by] what we shall call a hegemonic war. It would be easy to think that greater American military efforts could offset the consequences of China’s increasing power and possibly even lead to the formation of a multilateral strategy to contain China in the future. one of the deans of realism who taught for decades at Princeton.S. believing we could do as we wished. Even with less relative power. Even more insidious is the risk of overstretch. American relative power is declining to the point where even subsets of major powers acting in concert could produce sufficient military power to stand a reasonable chance of successfully opposing American military policies. Clearly. China and Russia. America must avoid this great-power trap. however. not active counterbalancing coalitions. In current-U. hard. the rapid spread of technology and technological breakthroughs means that one great discovery does not buoy an already-strong state to decades-long predominance. The world is slowly coming into balance. True. increasing the risk of counterbalancing. the allure of preventive war —or lesser measures to “merely” firmly contain a rising power—has a more compelling logic than many might assume. Indeed. Policy makers must act responsibly in this new era or risk international opposition that poses far greater costs and far greater dangers. and some like Germany go even further. the Franco-Prussian War. but its power relative to even the collective power of all other major states combined grew from 1990 to 2000. would have sufficient economic capacity to mount military opposition at least as serious as did the Soviet Union during the cold war. France. shoring up their security by adopting preventive military strategies. So it is understandable that we were lulled into a sense of security. . Sam & Megan . America’s relative decline is fundamentally changing international politics.8 Now. no other single state is powerful enough to balance against it. Further. but rather by a 144 percent increase in China’s relative position. This is not yet great-power war of the kind seen in centuries past. For America. the United States remains stronger than any other state individually. to actively stop a rising competitor from becoming dominant. combat power (the Fourth Infantry Division) in the opening months of the Iraq War. the United States is not the first great power to suffer long-term decline— we should learn from history. for instance.-dollar terms—the preferred measure of the unipolar-dominance school—the United States has already fallen far from being a global hegemon and unipolarity itself is waning. So. along with important regional powers like Turkey. nonetheless. Near the time of the Iraq War. America’s current. not by an evensteeper decline of our near-peer competitor. The distinct quality of a system with only one superpower is that predicament is far more severe. For declining great powers. Indonesia. Robert Gilpin. beyond defensive alliances.S. the United States was indeed not only stronger than any other state individually. And with a rising China—with raw resources of population. military balancing against the United States was not a serious possibility. 1/22) Clearly. and this type of alliance may never form. which China alone is likely to reach in the coming decade. military efforts to contain the rising power are most likely doomed to failure. This time. A true global hegemon is more powerful still—stronger than all secondranked powers acting as members of a counterbalancing coalition seeking to contain the unipolar leader.S. Great powers in decline seem to almost instinctively spend more on military forces in order to shore up their disintegrating strategic positions. And it is worth remembering that the Soviet Union never had more than about half the world product of the United States. there is no way to exploit this vulnerability short of obviously hostile alliances (with India. and is fundamentally different from Russia circa 1850 and Great Britain circa 1910. adopting policies that enhance the former and modify the latter. a coherent grand strategy also calls for rectifying the current imbalance between our means and our ends. people grossly underrated the ability of Germany. The Napoleonic Wars. All suffered ugly defeats. believed that “the first and most attractive response to a society’s decline is to eliminate the source of the problem . The instability and danger of the cold war quickly became a distant memory. Any efforts along these lines would likely backfire—and only exacerbate America’s problems. if present trends continue to 2013 and beyond. since China will soon have as much economic potential to balance the United States as did the Soviet Union during the cold war. it would have required virtually every major power to actively oppose the United States in order to assemble a counterbalancing coalition that could approximate America’s potential power. to use the United Nations to delay. current-dollar calculations put the crossover point closer to 2040—and with Beijing evermore dependent on imported oil for continued economic growth. numerous voices called for precisely this. whenever and wherever we wished. but it harkens the instability that future unilateral efforts may trigger. along with any one of the other major powers. Since Thucydides. Russia and China. This 18 Michael. noting that on current trajectories China would overtake the United States as the world’s leading economic power by 2050.Hegemony Page 18 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Unsustainable – 1NC Heg will inevitably collapse – attempting to hold on makes the decline worse Pape 09 professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (Robert. At the beginning of the 1990s. landmass and increasing adoption of leading technology—a true peer competitor is looming. And America’s current our relative decline of 32 percent is accompanied. Although China’s growth also depends on external sources of oil. Indeed. A COHERENT grand strategy seeks to balance a state’s economic resources and its foreign-policy commitments and to sustain that balance over time. By these standards. waging war just to keep another state down has turned out to be one of the great losing strategies in history. rapid domestic economic decline is merely accelerating our own downfall. economic and diplomatic tools to oppose American military power. America almost reached the crucial threshold of 50 percent of major-power product necessary to become a true global hegemon. it is not surprising that major powers opted for soft-balancing measures—relying on institutional. National Interest. The balance of world power circa 2008 and 2013 shows a disturbing trend. to soft balance against the United States. complicate and ultimately deny the use of one-third of U. German aggression in World War I. but its power to stand up to the collective opposition of other major powers is falling precipitously. The faults in the arguments of the unipolar-dominance school are being brought into sharp relief. U.” Yet. one might think the case for actively containing China is all the stronger. as that date draws nearer—indeed. And yet we are beginning to see “the conflict of history” repeat itself. Taiwan and Japan) and clearly aggressive military measures (controlling the sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia) that together could deny oil to China. China’s growth turns mainly on domestic issues—such as shifting the workforce from rural to urban areas—that are beyond the ability of outside powers to significantly influence. All were worse-off than had they not attacked. Empire Falls. major shifts in the balance of power in the international system often lead to instability and conflict. Absent provocative military adventures by Beijing. scholars of international politics have famously argued that a declining hegemon and rising challenger must necessarily face such intense security competition that hegemonic war to retain dominance over the international system is almost a foregone conclusion.

Nearly half have been shifted to Iraq and elsewhere. reducing our troop levels far below the one hundred thousand of the 1990s. Sam & Megan 19 . With American forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and mounting troubles in Iran and Pakistan.Hegemony Page 19 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW self-reinforcing spiral escalates current spending to maintain increasingly costly military commitments. the United States has all but gutted its military commitments to Europe. We cannot afford to keep our previous promises. Today. Asia and the Persian Gulf is coming unglued. the cold-war framework of significant troop deployments to Europe. crowding out productive investment for future growth. Pape continues… Michael.

one must wonder whether America would significantly shift air and naval power away from its ongoing wars in the Middle East in order to live up to its global commitments. With 30 percent of the world’s product. Recently. There is no sign of such a burst on the horizon. Sam & Megan 20 . Washington must think creatively and look for opportunities to make strategic trades. Russia may well do more to discourage Iran’s nuclear program in return for less U. Even assuming a fairly quick and problem-free drawdown. This approach has done little for great powers in the past. fiscal and education policies to stimulate more productive investment over the long haul is a sensible domestic component to America’s new grand strategy. However. and America will likely be no exception when it comes to the inevitable costs of desperate policy making. Unipolarity is becoming obsolete. policies. spreading defense burdens more equally will not be easy and will be fraught with its own costs and risks. to wage two major regional wars at the same time.Hegemony Page 20 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Unsustainable – 1NC Pape continued… Little wonder that Russia found an opportunity to demonstrate the hollowness of the Bush administration’s plan for expanding NATO to Russia’s borders by scoring a quick and decisive military victory over Georgia that America was helpless to prevent. just withdrawing American troops from Iraq is not enough to put America’s grand strategy into balance. as Europe and Asia continue to be low-order priorities. since the world will likely remain globally competitive.S. The key principle is for America to gain international support among regional powers like Russia and China for its vital national-security objectives by adjusting less important U. trapping the state in an ever-worsening strategic dilemma. it cannot. if necessary. Michael. even considering the attendant risks. To justify postponing this restructuring of its grand strategy. the United States could imagine maintaining this hope. Washington must adopt more realistic foreign commitments. America needs to share the burden of regional security with its allies and continue to draw down our troop levels in Europe and Asia. this is simply part of the price of America’s declining relative power. Together. The United States is not just declining. Misguided efforts to extract more security from a declining economic base only divert potential resources from investment in the economy. The days when the United States could effectively solve the security problems of its allies in these regions almost on its own are coming to an end. could it really wage a protracted struggle in Asia as well? And as the gap between America’s productive resources and global commitments grows. And of course America needs to develop a plan to reinvigorate the competitiveness of its economy. If the United States could not readily manage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. For instance. Yet. pressure to expand NATO to its borders. American leaders have consistently claimed the ability to maintain a significant forward-leaning military presence in the three major regions of the globe and.S. If a large-scale conventional war between China and Taiwan broke out in the near future. why will others pass up opportunities to take advantage of America’s overstretched grand strategy? Since the end of the cold war. A combination of targeted tax. Harvard’s Michael Porter issued an economic blueprint to renew America’s environment for innovation. Nearing 20 percent. these factors point toward the Persian Gulf remaining the most important region in American grand strategy. America is likely to remain dependent on imported oil for decades. even under the most optimistic scenarios. True. the risks of instability in Iraq. So. other states are rising to counter American power and the United States is losing much of its strategic freedom. Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region are likely to remain for many years to come. The heart of his plan is to remove the obstacles to increasing investment in science and technology. Further. But it would be misguided to assume that the United States could easily regain its previously dominant economic position. The harsh reality is that the United States no longer has the economic capacity for such an ambitious grand strategy. America would need a firm expectation of high rates of economic growth over the next several years.

All of this has led to one of the most significant declines of any state since the mid-nineteenth century.S. U. For instance. China and Russia are expected to continue growing at a substantially greater rate than the United States.7 percent—the assumed marginal gain of 2. although all major countries are suffering economically. although the United States remains well ahead of China on many indicators of leading technology on a per capita basis. In other words. decline due to the global diffusion of technology. These estimates suggest that roughly a quarter of America’s relative decline is due to U. current-account deficits. decline. decline.1 percent of world product amounts to some 27 percent of the U. the average rate of U. the United States would have had a bigger economy in absolute terms and would have lost less power relative to others. the fact is that since 2000. What would happen if we assumed that the United States grew during the Bush years at the same rate as during Clinton’s? What would have happened had the world continued on its same trajectory.7 percent—the assumed marginal gain of 1.3 percent.6 When compared to the share of gross world product lost by the United States from 2000 to 2008— 7. population. How much does China matter? Imagine the extreme case—that China had not grown. the Chinese have caught or nearly caught up with Americans in every category in the aggregate. it becomes clear both that Michael. the United States had three times the computer sales. Heg Unsustainable Heg is unsustainable – stats prove Pape 09 professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (Robert.S. power. China and other states in the world. in 2008. Despite all the pro-economy talk from the Bush administration.4 As Fareed Zakaria describes in his recent book. And when one examines past declines and their consequences. power is the result of uneven rates of economic growth between America. Worse. The Post-American World. and their rapid global diffusion is a profound factor driving down America’s power compared to other countries. and with it the ultimate sources of state power—productive capacities.2 percent instead of its actual 23.ave risen to 25. growth has fallen considerably.5 The fact that the United States remains ahead of China on a per capita basis does matter—it means that China. can create many more knowledge workers in the future. economic weaknesses (spending on the Iraq War. Assuming the rest of the world continued at its actual rate of growth. tax cuts. America’s share of world product in 2008 would h.2 percent.S. these are merely thought experiments. but we assume China did not grow at such an astounding rate? Of course.S. Russia has also turned its economic trajectory around. National Interest. which is likely to only further weaken U. True.2 percent more than today.7 percent per year from 2000 to 2008 instead of the (Bush) rate of 2. or 1.S. a sixth to China’s superior performance and just over half to the spread of technology to the rest of the world. Whereas in 2000. over the past two decades. growth rates are down almost 50 percent from the Clinton years.S. one can gain a rough weighting of the factors behind America’s shrinking share of world production by asking a few simple counterfactual questions of the data. from nearly 4 percent annually during the Clinton years to just over 2 percent per year under Bush.S. these back-of-the-envelope approximations serve as useful starting points. etc. When compared to the share of world product lost by the United States from 2000 to 2008—7. U. The answers are pretty straightforward.S. At the same time. and the United States and the rest of the world continued along their actual path of economic growth since 2000. which leave out all manner of technical problems like “interaction effects. Had the American economy grown at the (Clinton) rate of 3. how much is U. In past eras—the “age of iron” and the “age of steel”—leading states retained their technological advantages for many decades. five times the internet users and forty times the broadband subscribers as China. However. with more patents each year than in all other countries combined. with more than four times the U. from year after year of losses in the 1990s to significant annual gains since 2000.1 percent.). the ability to diffuse new technology—to turn chalkboard ideas into mass-produced applications—has been spreading rapidly across many parts of the globe. self-inflicted wounds of the Bush years significantly exacerbated America’s decline.S. America’s share of world product in 2008 would be 24. So. technology and knowledge diffuse more quickly today. 1/22) THE EROSION of the underpinnings of U. this grossly under-weights the size of the knowledge economy in China compared to America. the United States has not lost its position as the most innovative country in the world. economic weaknesses under Bush or China’s superior economic performance? Although precise answers are not possible. China has sustained a consistently high rate of growth of 10 percent per year—a truly stunning performance. As the most recent growth estimates (November 2008) by the IMF make clear.” Still. If so. America’s decline was well under way before the economic downturn.Hegemony Page 21 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. Empire Falls. This trajectory is almost sure to be revised further downward as the consequences of the financial crisis in fall 2008 become manifest. Sam & Megan 21 . both by making the decline steeper and faster and crowding out productive investment that could have stimulated innovation to improve matters.S.2 percent of world product accounts for about 15 percent of the U. As Table 3 shows. America is losing its overwhelming technological dominance in the leading industries of the knowledge economy.

fall is remarkable and that dangerous instability in the international system may lie ahead. Something fundamental has changed. If we end up believing in the wishful thinking of unipolar dominance forever. in size. Indeed. It is one of the largest relative declines in modern history. downfall is indeed extraordinary. the costs could be far higher than a simple percentage drop in share of world product. Sam & Megan 22 . America’s relative decline since 2000 of some 30 percent represents a far greater loss of relative power in a shorter time than any power shift among European great powers from roughly the end of the Napoleonic Wars to World War II.S. THE UNITED States has always prided itself on exceptionalism. the unexpected internal collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 Michael. it is clearly surpassed by only one other great-power decline.S. and the U.Hegemony Page 22 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW the U.

“unipolarity appears as the least stable of international organizations. will be “by any measure a first rate military power”) and the European Union (each with a 14 percent share) are approaching the United States (20 percent) in their respective shares of world power. stimulates eligible states. and the unipolar era’s days are numbered. A hegemon’s grip on preponderance begins to loosen when the relative power gap between itself and some of the other starts narrowing appreciably. China and India are projected to post significant gains. the early 21st century may be seen as the time when some in the developing world led by China and India came into their own. In its survey of likely international developments up until 2020. a study by the Strategic Assessment Group concludes that already both China (which.” In a unipolar world. The potential for successful counterhegemonic balancing always exists in a unipolar system. notes: The likely emergency of China and India as new major global players – similar to the rise of Germany in the 19th century and the United States in the early 20th century – will transform the geopolitical landscape. because hegemony is not the equivalent of what used to be called “universal empire. in itself.” The two prior unipolar moments in international history – France under Louis XIV and mid-Victorian Britain. as balance-of-power theory predicts. by around 2020. Differential economic growth rates determine which actors in the international system are eligible states changing the international system and therefore the incentives for changing the international system. new great powers indeed are emerging. ultimately ending its dominance.” The redistribution of power in the international system caused by differential growth rates invariably has important geopolitical consequences: time and again relative “economic shifts heralded the rise of new Great Powers which one day would have a decisive impact on the military/territorial order. Thus. the international system today already is on the cusp of multipolarity and is likely to become fully multipolar between now and 2020. with impacts potentially as dramatic as those of previous two centuries. eligible states have real incentives to transform their latent capabilities into actual hard power. even if somewhat belatedly.Hegemony Page 23 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. eligible Michael.” A unipolar system still is made up of sovereign states. Texas A&M University (Christopher. “The Peace of Illusions” 149-150) Although balance-of-power theorists were off with respect to the timing. In other words. Mapping the Global Future. from the standpoint of balance-of-power theory. invariably some of these states – which I term “eligible states – have the potential to do . As Gilpin puts it. because the hegemon’s unchecked power. In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the American Century. Although the same study predicts the EU’s shares of world power will decrease somewhat between now and 2020. In a similar vein. unipolar systems contain the seeds of their own demise. and even if none of them have the short-term capacity to counterbalance the hegemon. The distribution of power in the international system is never static.suggest that hegemony prompts the nearsimultaneous emergence of several new great powers and the consequent transformation of the international system from unipolarity to multipolarity. in self-defense. now. new great powers are rising. because some states are gaining relative power while others are losing it. Given the anarchic nature of the international political system. Heg Unsustainable – Counterbalancing Unipolarity is impossible – rising powers Layne 06 Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service. “The critical significance of the differential growth of power among states is that it alters the cost of so. In this sense. When that gap closes enough. The emergence of new great powers erodes the hegemon’s relative power. to emerge as great powers. states can gain security only by building themselves into counterweights to the hegemon’s power. Sam & Megan 23 . the National Intelligence Council’s report. according to Mapping the Global Future. It is unsurprising that. an inflection point is reached where the hegemon’s hard-power capabilities no longer are an effective entry barrier to others’ emergence as peer competitors.

Layne. possibly in a failed Pakistan. the United States seems fated to succumb to the “hegemon’s temptation.S. and thereby overreach themselves." Looking ahead. on its present course." American Empire: A Debate. Indeed. 54-55) primacy and empire is a strategy that will lead to bad consequences for the United States. North Korea). The American Conservative "The Cost of Empire" October 3rd. and rising great powers like China could erode America’s relative power—especially if the U.amconmag.S. The very fact of America’s overwhelming power is bound to produce a geopolitical backlash—which is why it’s only a short step from the celebration of imperial glory to the recessional of imperial power. Sam & Megan 24 . this hegemonic muscle-flexing has a price. it almost certainly will find [end page 54] itself on a collision course with Iran (and possibly North Korea and Syria) and —more importantly—China. 03 – Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. suffers setbacks in future conflicts.Hegemony Page 24 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Hegemony Bad – War Hegemony causes war – imperial aspirations produce geopolitical backlash Layne. Similarly. Rather than bringing the United States peace and security.com/article/2003/oct/06/00007/) Perhaps the proponents of America’s imperial ambitions are right and the U. they are tempted to use it repeatedly. "The Case Against the American Empire. 7 –Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute.S. The pursuit of primacy causes global savage wars for peace – it makes conflict inevitable. the quagmire in Iraq also is a direct consequence of U. ISBN 0415952034. The cumulative costs of fighting —or preparing to fight—guerilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. the pursuit of primacy and empire will drag the United States into otherwise avoidable wars—what one proponent of the strategy has termed "savage wars for peace. I argue that Michael. asymmetric conflicts against terrorists (in the Philippines. and elsewhere). regional powers (Iran. if the United States continues to follow its current strategy of primacy and empire.” Hegemons have lots of power and because there is no countervailing force to stop them. (Christopher. The 9/11 attacks were a violent reaction against America’s primacy—and specifically against its imperial ambitions in the Middle East. And it will not end there. Because it is premised on the belief that the United States must embark on assertive policies to bring about regime change by imposing democracy abroad. the pursuit of primacy and empire will result in a geopolitical backlash against the United States. Over time. will not suffer the same fate as previous hegemonic powers. Published by Routledge. It already has. p. imperial aspirations. Don’t bet on it. for example in a war with China over Taiwan. In this chapter. http://www. (Christopher.

The other is Wilsonian ideology. The emergence of new great powers during the next decade or two is all but certain. 54-55) Contrary to what its proponents claim. security. and uncritical support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.S. the United States can attain peace and the peace promised by the American Empire is a peace of illusions." American Empire: A Debate. as the United States sought to establish political. "The Case Against the American Empire. on a collision course with other rising powers Layne. ISBN 0415952034. Indeed. As I have argued elsewhere. 54-55) The American Empire rests on two foundations." American Empire: A Debate.S. Heg causes geopolitical backlash – drags the U. even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.S. The U. 7 –Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. Published by Routledge. primacy pressed down on the Middle East. "The Case Against the American Empire. primacy causes insecurity for the United States. Sam & Megan 25 . Tensions with China and Iran also are being fueled by the liberal—Wilsonian— thrust of American strategy that challenges the legitimacy of nondemocratic regimes while aggressively aiming at the promotion of democracy abroad.Hegemony Page 25 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Hegemony Bad – War Heg causes war – it puts the U. In the short term. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda are a form of blow-back against longstanding U. The apostles of Empire argue that by maintaining American primacy. however. the heavy hand of U.S. into asymmetric conflicts Layne. military. the logic of U. ISBN 0415952034. (Christopher. China already is on the cusp of establishing itself as a peer competitor to the United States. In both cases. and with Iran. (Christopher. Published by Routledge. Michael. and by exporting democracy abroad. in at least three respects. First. this will take the form of traditional great power counterbalancing against American primacy. policies in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf—including American support for authoritarian regimes in the region. p.S. grand strategy of maintaining its global primacy has put the United States on the road to confrontation with a rising China. 7 –Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. In time. strategy suggests that preventive and preemptive options are on the table to thwart the rise of a prospective peer competitor (China) and a regional rival (Iran).S. p. primacy has triggered asymmetric [end page 93] responses—notably terrorism—in regions like the Middle East where America’s geopolitical presence is resented. America’s current strategy of primacy and empire also means that the United States is on a collision course with China and Iran. and cultural ascendancy in the region.135 Primacy is a strategy that causes insecurity because it will lead to a geopolitical backlash against the United States. One is the faux realism of primacy.

The United States may be greatly reviled in some quarters of the Islamic world."88 September 11 represented a violent counterreaction to America's geopolitical-and cultural-hegemony. 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. Sam & Megan 26 . No doubt. rather than for what we do. puts it. After 9/11.Hegemony Page 26 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Bad – Terrorism Heg causes terrorism Layne 06 Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service. at the time. there are Islamic fundamentalists who do "hate" the United States for cultural. specifically about U. even if -. Betts presciently observed in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article: It is 'hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if the United States had not been identified so long as the mainstay of Israel. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet. the RAND Corporation terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman says. and use of power to achieve political change. but were the United States not so intimately involved in the affairs of the Middle East. the shah of Iran. this war will be without winners and losers. http://weekly. proved to be unfounded.S. which is a form of "blowback" against America's preponderance and its world role. Fundamentally 9/11 was about geopolitics. it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living.ahram.eg/2004/705/op5. these allegations. the technology is a secret for nobody. Michael. Terrorism. as well as the allegation that Saddam was What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails.S. police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights. As Clausewitz observed."91 American policies-to be precise. from which no one will emerge victorious. with no knowledge of nuclear technology. It is American hegemony-that make the United States a lightning rod for Muslim anger Nuclear War SID – AHMED 04 Political Analyst [Mohamed. leaders-that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think. had no choice but to capitulate.org. and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam.and this is far from certain – the weapons used are less harmful than those used then. "One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe-at the urging of senior U. Japan."86 If we step back for a moment from our horror and revulsion at the events of September 11. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. As the strategy expert Richard K.90 As long as the United States maintains its global hegemony-and its concomitant preeminence in regions like the Persian Gulf-it will be the target of politically motivated terrorist groups like al Qaeda. the acquisition of power. "Why do they hate us?" This question missed the key point. to some extent the war on terror inescapably has overtones of a "clash of civilizations:' Still. Texas A&M University (Christopher “The Peace of Illusions” (p. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another. "War is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object. As Michael Scheurer. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. Societies would close in on themselves. So far.89 U. we will all be losers. As it turned out. And even leaving aside American neoconservatives' obvious relish for making it so. This completely changes the rules of the game. except for the two bombs dropped on Japan. hegemony fuels terrorist groups like al Qaeda and fans Islamic fundamentalism. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures. Today. nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. harbouring WMD. we can see that the attack was in keeping with the Clausewitzian paradigm of war: force was used against the United States by its adversaries to advance their political objectives. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. who headed the CIA analytical team monitoring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. 190-191) The events of 9/11 are another example of how hegemony makes the United States less secure than it would be if it followed an offshore balancing strategy.S. this isn't-and should not be allowed to become-a replay of the Crusades. including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. and ideological reasons. it's hardly likely that this detestation would have manifested itself in something like 9/11. many foreign policy analysts and pundits asked the question. This could lead to a third world war. religious. tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. is "about power: the pursuit of power. hegemony.htm] A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki.

Sam & Megan 27 . Michael.Hegemony Page 27 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW .

but a particularly threatening example of a condition of global disorder and disaffection capable of giving rise to numerous such groups. 7 – Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Barry R. November/December) Al-Qaeda and other similar. Available Online at http://www. November/December. Thus. Retaliation for US been drastically reduced while the costs have skyrocketed.” The American Interest. Hegemony causes terrorism – it feeds the rise of violent organizations Posen. rather than interventionism. Heg Causes Terrorism Terrorists aren’t deterred by military power because it falls out of asymmetric power calculations Eland 08 senior fellow at the Independent Institute (ivan. Poll after poll in the Muslim world indicates that Muslims like US political and economic freedoms. Even if terrorist resentment is inevitable – US policy magnifies the effect by catalyzing local issues into general Anti-Americanism Posen 07 Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT and Director of the MIT Security Studies Program (Barry R..S. Back to the Future: Rediscovering America’s Foreign Policy Traditions During the Cold War. adapt to local circumstances. Summer 2008. In other words. groups have also professionalized the training of their soldiers and terrorist operatives. Naturally. “The Case for Restraint” The American Interest. the consensus view is correct. at least. This turns U. security problem has to do not with conquest or intimidation but safety. and even culture but hate US meddling in their world. and profit from the more general availability of weaponry. in the short term. practicing military restraint. Volume 3. Number 2. interventionism in the Arab-Muslim world is al Qaeda’s primary motive for attacking the United States. but the US quest for an informal global empire actually undermines this objective. it sabotages it. 28 Michael. These forces could give rise to other violent organizations. but cannot now easily or by themselves redress. there are deeper forces feeding that organization than its interpretation of religious texts. but if the foregoing analysis is right. interventions into opportunities for transnational anti-system groups like al-Qaeda to assist local resistance movements and to harness the power of nationalism and politicized religion to their more diffuse but still distinctly anti-American agenda. al-Qaeda is not the problem.the-american-interest. The main discrete threat is al-Qaeda. but less ambitious. This condition is the problem. Islamist and otherwise.S.Hegemony Page 28 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. and the gains from interventionism have The only type of attack that cannot be deterred by the US nuclear arsenal is that from terrorists — as was demonstrated on 9/11. They learn from one another. albeit inadvertently. with thousands of miles of borders and many possible targets. Here. “The Case For Restraint. Protecting its citizens and property should be the first goal of any government. Specifically. non-Muslim — occupation of Muslim lands and meddling in their politics by supporting Because conventional and nuclear military power have very little utility in stopping terrorist attacks and because the United States has an open society.cfm?Id=331&MId=16) Today the most imminent U. to cause. but in the long term the only way to effectively deal with anti – United States terrorism is to reduce the motivation of terrorists to attack America in the first place.com/ai2/article. would make Americans safer at home. Number 3. Mediterranean Quarterly Volume 19. the Soviet rival is in the dustbin of history. at least a plausible argument could be made for some [End Page 94] US intervention overseas to counter Soviet encroachment. Sam & Megan . the utmost effort should be made to capture or kill bin Laden and eradicate al Qaeda. which American power and actions over the years have done a good deal. corrupt dictators and Israel. Osama bin Laden’s biggest gripes are with US — that is. But the Cold War is long over. homeland security efforts will likely have only limited effect. The ease of international travel and trade allows human and material resources to be shifted rapidly from place to place. Empire does not equal security — in fact. technology.

June 5th. Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. the establishment New York Times. in Economics and Ph. Obama is escalating this un-winnable war. 9 – Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. terrorism originating from the Islamic world.Hegemony Page 29 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext.independent.A. Iowa State University. Sam & Megan 29 . forces from there by the end of 2011. Obama is not the only person in the United States who fails to understand this key cause of anti-U. Michael. That is exactly wrong and a complete misunderstanding of the roots of the basic problem. the United States should just stop meddling in that part of the world.asp? id=2513) “Obama has followed the footsteps of his predecessor in increasing animosity toward Muslims and increasing enemy fighters and establishing long-term wars. For example. he needs to address the challenges facing the Arab world. . The imperial mentality of solving all such problems got the United States into its current riff with the Islamic world. .S.D. instead of winding down Bush’s nation-building quagmire in Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing al Qaeda. and Europe after conflict or Cold War ended. “Obama v. The war in Afghanistan has already fueled dangerous Islamist militancy in Pakistan and had helped al Qaeda find more recruits. the Islamic world cannot be blamed for taking a “seeing is believing” attitude toward this promise. http://www. So the American people should get ready to reap the fruits of what the leaders of the White House have planted throughout the coming years and decades. (Ivan. M. The foreign policy establishment— both Democratic and Republican elements—believes that the United States must solve all of the Islamic/Arab world’s problems to turn things around there. in a news article on Obama’s Cairo speech.S. To get rid of this dangerous source of friction. However. Obama to win favor.A. In addition.org/newsroom/article. Heg Causes Terrorism Obama can’t change the perception of the US as imperialistic – rooted military traditions will continue to fuel the Middle Eastern crisis and terrorism Eland. The Independent Institute.B. . because the United States has had difficulty leaving the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately. from poverty and inadequate education systems to limits on democracy and human rights. in Public Policy from George Washington University. pontificated: For Mr.” Obama has pledged to fulfill the Bush administration’s agreement with Iraq that the United States will withdraw all U. Osama”. B. Korean peninsula.

Hegemony Page 30 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Heg Bad – Prolif

Heg cause prolif – multipolarity will solve it

Weber et al 07 Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley (Steven with Naazneen Barma, Matthew Kroenig, and Ely Ratner, Ph.D. Candidates at the University of California-Berkeley and Research Fellows at its New Era Foreign Policy Center, [“How Globalization Went Bad,” Foreign Policy, Issue 158, January/February,) Axiom 3 is a story about the preferred strategies of the weak. It's a basic insight of international relations that states

try to balance power. They protect themselves by joining groups that can hold a hegemonic threat at bay. But what if there is no viable group to join? In today's unipolar world, every nation from Venezuela to North Korea is looking for a way to constrain American power. But in the unipolar world, it's harder for states to join together to do that. So they turn to other means. They play a different game. Hamas, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela are not going to become allies anytime soon. Each is better off finding other ways to make life more difficult for Washington. Going nuclear is one way. Counterfeiting U.S. currency is another. Raising uncertainty about oil supplies is perhaps the most obvious method of all. Here's the important downside of unipolar globalization. In a world with multiple great powers, many of these threats would be less troublesome. The relatively weak states would have a choice among potential partners with which to ally, enhancing their influence. Without that more attractive choice, facilitating the dark side of
globalization becomes the most effective means of constraining American power. SHARING GLOBALIZATION'S BURDEN The world is paying a heavy price for the instability created by the combination of globalization and unipolarity, and the United States is bearing

Consider the case of nuclear proliferation. There's effectively a market out there for proliferation, with its own supply (states willing to share nuclear technology) and demand (states that badly want a nuclear weapon). The overlap of unipolarity with globalization ratchets up both the supply and demand, to the detriment of U.S. national security. It has become fashionable, in the wake of the Iraq war, to
most of the burden.

comment on the limits of conventional military force. But much of this analysis is overblown. The United States may not be able to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. But that doesn't matter much from the perspective of a government that thinks the Pentagon has it in its sights. In Tehran, Pyongyang, and many other capitals, including Beijing, the bottom line is simple: The U.S. military could, with conventional force, end those regimes tomorrow if it chose to do so. No

country in the world can dream of challenging U.S. conventional military power. But they can certainly hope to deter America from using it. And the best deterrent yet invented is the threat of nuclear retaliation. Before 1989, states that felt threatened by the United States could turn to the Soviet Union's nuclear umbrella for protection. Now, they turn to people like A.Q. Khan. Having your own nuclear weapon used to be a luxury. Today, it is fast becoming a necessity. North Korea is the clearest example. Few countries had it worse during the Cold
and it stared continuously at tens of thousands of U.S. troops on its border. But, for

War. North Korea was surrounded by feuding, nuclear armed communist neighbors, it was officially at war with its southern neighbor,

40 years, North Korea didn't seek nuclear weapons. It didn't need to, because it had the Soviet nuclear umbrella. Within five years of the Soviet collapse, however, Pyongyang was pushing ahead full steam on plutonium reprocessing facilities. North Korea's founder, Kim II Sung, barely flinched when former U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration readied war
plans to strike his nuclear installations preemptively. That brinkmanship paid off. Today North Korea is likely a nuclear power, and Kim's son rules the country with an iron fist. America's conventional military strength means a lot less to a nuclear North Korea. Saddam Hussein's great strategic blunder was that he took too long to get to the same place.

How would things be different in a multipolar world? For starters, great powers could split the job of policing proliferation, and even collaborate on some particularly hard cases. It's often forgotten now that, during the Cold War, the only state 'with a tougher nonproliferation policy than the United States was the Soviet Union. Not a single country that had a formal alliance with Moscow ever became a nuclear power. The Eastern bloc was full of countries with advanced technological capabilities in every area except one— nuclear weapons. Moscow simply wouldn't permit it. But today we see the uneven and inadequate level of effort that nonsuperpowers devote to stopping proliferation. The Europeans dangle carrots at Iran, but they are unwilling to
consider serious sticks. The Chinese refuse to admit that there is a problem. And the Russians are aiding Iran's nuclear ambitions. When push comes to shove, nonproliferation today is almost entirely America's burden.

Proliferation leads to nuclear war

Utgoff 02, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses., Survival, vol. 44, no. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 85–102 “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions” Michael, Sam & Megan 30

Hegemony Page 31 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW
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. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
In sum,

Michael, Sam & Megan

31

Hegemony Page 32 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Ext. Heg Causes Prolif

Rogue states are a self-fulfilling prophecy – states proliferate because they are afraid of the US.
Layne 07 Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute [Christopher “American Empire: A Debate” (p 133)]

Long before Saddam Hussein came down the pike, “regime change” has been a favored tool of American foreign policy. Here, however, U.S. grand strategy tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it causes states that might not otherwise have done so to become threats . That is, Wilsonianism causes the United States to be more, not less, insecure than it would be if its external ambitions were modest. When, by asserting the universal applicability of its own ideology, the United States challenges the legitimacy of other regimes – by labeling them as outposts of tyranny or members of an axis of evil – the effect is to increase those states’ sense of isolation and vulnerability. With good reason, such states fear that their survival could be at risk. Iran is a good example. Given that states – and regimes – are highly motivated to survive, it’s no surprise that others respond to American policy by adopting strategies that give them a chance to do so – like acquiring WMD capabilities and supporting terrorism. One thing is for sure: because of its Wilsonian foundations, the American Empire is a recipe for confrontation and antagonism with “others.”

Michael, Sam & Megan

32

State sovereignty also allows for the formation of multiple loci of power and the prospect of power balancing. That’s a blueprint for trouble if there ever was one. and it spends much more on its defense than all its rivals combined. if other nations. The logic of empire therefore dictates that as few states as possible should be allowed to gain a defensive footing with the United States. which are things an empire cannot accept if it is committed to maintaining supremacy. we will have waited too long.” 90 From this perspective. 2 – Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute [Ivan. But supporting preventative or preemptive action could shift the rules of the world order against peace and stability. such as Iraq. But the “$64. “The Empire Strikes Out: The "New Imperialism" and Its Fatal Flaws. the risk of nuclear war could actually rise. 459. http://www. including war. In its National Security Strategy.” 91 In his June 2. What’s more. President Bush laid out his vision of a future in which the United States more or less monopolizes global military power through preemption if necessary: “America has. .” adds Mearsheimer. That’s because the doctrine of prevention or preemption is predicated on the “ideology of the offensive. As political scientist Frank Russell once wrote: “Rome . 93 Indeed. A balance of power system is essentially a device for keeping the power of different states within limits by a system of checks and balances. We just have to be careful that if we create exceptions to those rules.” which says that striking early is less difficult than striking later. the United States currently has the world’s most powerful military. the strategy of empire is unlikely to function if all sorts of states are allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a deterrent against the power projection of the United States. the strategy of empire necessarily leads to a devaluation of other states’ sovereignty. That’s because accepting the principle of noninterference is an impediment to a dominant state seeking to make other nations conform to its will. Rome certainly was not interested in a balance of power for the very reason she was interested in a monopoly of power.” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. offense-minded states have a Michael. .” 89 What’s more. [its] military strengths beyond challenge. The echo of Rome is clear.) That approach is consistent with the strategy of empire. I think it would be better not to do that. It will also increase the likelihood of war. never was interested . Certainly. in preserving a balance of power. the exceptions justify it—lest we establish precedents that others will emulate. “is that we all expect certain rules. such as India and Pakistan.” said Bush.” 94 “There’s no question that great powers like the United States [can] launch preventative wars or preemptive strikes whenever they conclude it’s in their interests.pdf) The answer is probably no. allow [end page 13] these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. which raises what John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has called the “stopping power of water. speech to West Point’s graduating class. Heg Causes Prolif The pursuit of hegemony creates a cycle of interventionism that dramatically increases WMD proliferation and risks catastrophic conflict.” which means taking military action before an imminent attack by an adversary. . . .000 question is whether or not it makes sense to stand on the rooftops and announce loudly to the world that this is your doctrine.” 92 (Although the president used the word “preemptive.org/pubs/pas/pa459.” says a skeptical Bush administration official. Eland. the Bush administration notes: “These weapons may . proximity matters. 2002.cato. is to speak loudly (extended and cut up and scatter Washington’s inadequate stick all over the place. Over the long run the strategy of empire will likely prove unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating.” the belief that “the presence of oceans on much of the earth’s surface makes it impossible for any state to achieve global hegemony. In practice this idea will bring preventative efforts. offense-minded states are apt to be war-prone because they believe the prospects for victory are very favorable to them. .” 96 Consequently. Sam & Megan 33 . I favor the Teddy Roosevelt approach The strategy of empire.” 95 deterrence) boldly asserts that “our best defense is a good offense. adopted preemption as their official policy. In other words. But it costs far more for the United States—a relatively secure nation separated from most of the world by two vast oceans—to project its power across the seas than it does for states located on other landmasses to project their power regionally. and “we have to be ready for preemptive action” because “if we wait for threats to fully materialize. “One of the reasons there is not a constant state of war. and intends to keep. The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy to foreign policy: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. in many cases the United States might launch a preventive attack to stop an incipient threat before it is even realized. obtains them. to make sure WMD proliferation is stopped at all costs. however. November 26.Hegemony Page 33 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. for example. before a nation working on WMD.

it may want more ability to control its security environment within East Asia. The expansion of Chinese influence in that region may run afoul of a United States.Hegemony Page 34 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW tendency to incite security dilemmas. 97 For example. which has a defense perimeter that is far forward and a military doctrine that is very preventive or preemptive. Eland continues… Michael. Sam & Megan 34 . whereby the efforts of weaker states to increase their relative security undermines. or appears to undermine. as China’s economy grows. the security of the offense-minded state. thus triggering a spiral of security competition that can culminate in confrontation or war.

Sam & Megan 35 . Thus.S. the security threat posed by failed states is really a second-order issue. According to the New York Times. and the stress of ongoing operations in Afghanistan. Thus.” 100 The strategy of empire could make the United States less secure in another major way as well—by dispersing and overtasking its military personnel and equipment. M. H.” 99 Yet it was such nation building that led to the attack on U. that is. telling other states and aspiring states who their leaders should be.” 101 The conclusion was that the American military would be stretched very thin. forces in like the proverbial man who finds himself stuck in a hole. citizens and to threaten mass destruction. in other words. Bell: [end page 15] Michael. Failed states are already an example of those self-reinforcing phenomena. Inevitable mistakes will lead to recrimination and suspicions about America’s motives. today’s advocates of empire are unable to break out of their consolidating logic. that is. in other words. But digging will neither get the man out of the hole nor make the United States safer. today’s advocates of empire recommend more digging. southwest Asia and the Sinai. how will Washington prove that an attack might have happened? Surely some foreign and domestic critics will discount the threat afterward. London was not in a position to rebuff a rising Nazi Germany early on because Britain was overstretched.S. but that interventionism can create altogether new ones. and accumulating manifold security and treaty commitments they are obliged to honor. a recent top-secret Pentagon war game.S. Empires get into trouble because they get bogged down fighting protracted small wars in the hinterland. code named Prominent Hammer. or deeply buried facilities. . . for ramping up U. would affect the military’s ability to wage and win a new regional war. 102 The strategic implications are potentially enormous. preventive attacks on installations associated with those superweapons often founder on a lack of intelligence on the location of such clandestine small mobile. which could in turn spur even more U. The primary danger is from an interventionist foreign policy that makes enemies who are resourceful and willing move into and exploit failed states. 98 Hence there is a paradox. the fact that so many people in the Muslim world dislike America’s meddling is not seen as an argument for rethinking U. The doctrine of prevention or preemptive intervention could actually create a greater incentive for other states to try to acquire WMD secretly as an insurance policy against American military might. One of the primary reasons Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 was that much of Britain’s strength was diffused throughout its far-flung empire.Hegemony Page 35 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Hegemony Bad – Prolif Eland continued… The other major problem with the doctrine of prevention or preemption is that in the absence of actual aggression against the United States. The Joint Chiefs of Staff subsequently recommended postponing an attack against Iraq. the danger posed by failed states is a consequence of something other than state failure per se. and launching wars to transform countries like Iraq “into a beacon of hope. (Yet as President Clinton [end page 14] found out in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox.) The unintended consequence of interventionism.S. And other states will worry that the doctrine could be used against them. Accordingly. promulgating foreign educational and health care programs. America and its citizens will become an even greater lightning rod for the world’s political malcontents. Nevertheless. prevention or preemption. even now. shows. that is. economic aid. 103 According to British historian P. the risks of foreign entanglements increase. Failed states matter to today’s advocates of empire because the existence of such states raises the specter that interventionist foreign policies in one place can have a deadly price tag made possible by individuals willing to take advantage of the situation in another place. The very problem of failed states. the United States could conceivably lose one or more large cities to demented or irrational retaliation for American intervention. Somalia. expanding the campaign against terrorism to a country like Iraq would place severe strains on personnel and cause deep shortages of certain critical weapons. In coming years. not that interventionism necessarily solves problems. those advocates see it as an argument for deeper involvement. policy or assuming a lower profile. could be more interventionism. has revealed that. As former Reagan adviser and Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow warns: “With the growing ability of small political movements and countries to kill U. And over the longer term there is the issue of being ready to fight a major theater war if necessary. the demands of long-term deployments in places like the Balkans and South Korea. Instead. . garrisoning myriad outposts.S. In fact. “The war game measured how the strains of new commitments to domestic defense.

clashes with the ambitions of a rising China. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. Michael. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. China has its own ideas about how East Asia's political and security order should be organized. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. 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. the odds of a Sino-American conflict are high. Sam & Megan 36 . there is little hope of winning a war against China short of using nuclear weapons. however. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. Nuclear War Straits Times 00 [“Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. With the US distracted. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. LN] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. the very fact of American primacy is bound to produce a geopolitical backlash—with China in the vanguard—in the form of counter-hegemonic balancing. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. for China puts sovereignty above everything else. a status quo that reflects American primacy. the United States cannot be completely indifferent to China's rise. Current American strategy commits the United States to maintaining the geopolitical status quo in East Asia. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. this means South Korea. to a lesser extent. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable. the Chinese troops suddenly appeared. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and North Korea. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the Americans). Moreover. If China were to retaliate.Hegemony Page 36 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Bad – China Shell US primacy ensures conflict with China So what should the United States do about China? Layne 07 Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Christopher “American Empire: A Debate” (p 75)] If the United States persists with its strategy of primacy.raise the possibility of a nuclear war. it cannot be ruled out entirely." he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. could enter a new and dangerous phase. the potential for future tension—or worse—exists. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. east Asia will be set on fire. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. and Chinese interests can be accommodated." he recalled. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. president of 50 years later. as I already have demonstrated. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -. "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not do this or that.S. As a rising great power. Nevertheless. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. then a fullscale war becomes unavoidable. In the region. the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -. In his book The Korean War. we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. the Philippines and. Japan. The United States' desire to preserve the status quo. Singapore. Unless U.truce or a broadened war. "Just when everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu. hostilities between India and Pakistan. In south Asia.” Jun 25. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal.

Sam & Megan 37 . After all. depends largely on what strategy the United States chooses to adopt toward China. "The Case Against the American Empire. Published by Routledge. however. Whether Washington and Beijing actually come to blows. On this score. Indeed. Yet even if the new government in Taipei proves to be more cautious than Chen’s administration. Under President Chen Shui-bian. That policy could easily lead to armed conflict with China. Galen. Introduction Aug 15. An armed clash between the mainland and Taiwan is all too likely at some point. Hegemony puts us on a collision course with China – absent a shift in grand strategy. 73-74) Layne. If the United States continues to aim at upholding its current primacy. China is unlikely Such dubious to tolerate indefinitely an upstart secessionist island barely 100 miles off its coast. To be sure. the lesson of history is that the emergence of new great powers in the international system leads to conflict. Empire: A Debate. Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America. not peace. and those analysts who assume that economic ties between those two entities—and between China and the United States—will be sufficient to prevent a crisis are being too optimistic." American the United States should not ignore the potential strategic ramifications of China’s arrival on the world stage as a great power. ISBN 0415952034. Still. Beijing’s leaders are almost certain to become more insistent about reunification. Taiwan has repeatedly engaged in actions to emphasize a national identity separate from China and to seek greater international recognition for its existence as an independent state—initiatives that Beijing considers extremely provocative. especially when the overwhelming majority of mainlanders consider Taiwan to be Chinese territory. p. the commitment that is potentially the most dangerous is Washington’s willingness to protect Taiwan’s de facto independence. Michael. CATO) security obligations are not confined to Eastern Europe. Heg Causes War With China Security guarantees ensure war with China Carpenter 08 vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (Ted. however. (Christopher. the notion— propagated by Beijing—that China’s will be a “peaceful rise” is just as fanciful as claims by American policy-makers that China has no need to build up its military capabilities because it is unthreatened by any other state. conflict is certain. As China’s economic and military strength grows. this does not mean that the United States and China inevitably are on a collision course that will culminate in the next decade or two in a war. 7 –Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. because the United States has the “last clear chance” to adopt a grand strategy that will serve its interests in balancing Chinese power without running the risk of an armed clash with [end page 73] Beijing. Sino-American conflict is virtually certain. Washington’s willingness to defend Taiwan is a high-stakes gamble with a decidedly unfavorable risk-reward calculation.Hegemony Page 37 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext.

and Japan might cooperate or form an alliance to do so. Those Asian countries might form the first line of defense against a rising China. Russia. Michael. Th e large physical separation over water between Japan and the United States did not prevent World War II because of the aforementioned power vacuum in East Asia. Those three larger powers might be assisted by smaller.S. if containing China becomes necessary (and it may not). European empires—French. Now.Hegemony Page 38 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Heg Good – China US isn’t key to contain china – regional powers can do it Eland 06 Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Ph. however. Independent Institute Working Paper Number 63. China may continue to enjoy rapid economic growth and become more assertive. and South Korea. in national security policy from George Washington University. wealthy nations such as Australia. India. Jan18) Yet every adverse development in the world—particularly in East Asia—does not pose a threat to U. but that power vacuum no longer exists with all the powerful and wealthy counterweights to a rising China. and Japan has the wealth and technological capability to become a capable counterweight to China.cult. other counterweights to a rising great power exist in the region today. security. Prior to World War II. Unlike in the 1930s. when Imperial Japan was expanding throughout East Asia. however. Although the vast distances of the Pacifi c Ocean separated the United States and Japan. thus allowing the United States to take advantage of the large Pacifi c moat separating China from the American homeland. Taiwan.D. and Dutch—with colonial possessions in East Asia were overstretched and in decline. British. India and Russia have capable nuclear arsenals. (Ivan. Is Future Conflict with China Unavoidable. Such vast separation over water should make China and the United States less threatening to each other because traversing a large body of water to invade another country is diffi . the United States was the only power that could counter the potential Japanese hegemon. Sam & Megan 38 .

S. As Gilpin observes. hegemons believe that the frequent use of force has a potent deterrent. In effect. When a hegemon wields its military power conspicuously. others are put on notice that the prudent course of action is to accommodate its dominance rather than challenging it. it is not surprising that since the cold war the United States has-in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq-intervened in such peripheral places as Somalia. When it comes to hard power. 152-153)] the United States could succumb-and. policymakers believe this to be the case. Strategically. and Kosovo while simultaneously extending its military reach into Central Asia."74 There is. arguably. Haiti. vivid example of the fact that the United States has the ability to deal withthis. hegemons usually end up biting off more than they can chew. of course. and a hegemon easily is lured into overexpansion. U. a hegemon earns its prestige-others' perceptions of the efficacy of its hard power capabilities-by using military power successfully to impose its will on others.Hegemony Page 39 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Bad – Interventionism Hegemony causes continuous interventions and overextension Layne 06 Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service. Texas A&M University [Christopher “The Peace of Illusions” (p. Sam & Megan 39 .72 Thus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that those wars should be a warning to other states: "If you put yourself in the shoes of a country that might decide they'd like to make mischief. and East Central Europe (all areas never previously viewed as ones where the United States had important interests). or dissuasive. after extolling the displays of America's military virtuosity in Afghanistan and Iraq. has-to the "hegemon's temptation. Clearly. There is another road to U. effect on other states." The hegemon's temptation is caused by the imbalance of power in its favor. we should expect a unipolar hegemon to initiate many wars and to use its military power promiscuously. a paradox to the hegemon's temptation: overexpansion leads to "imperial overstretch" and counterhegemonic balancing-the combined effect of which is hegemonic decline. Michael. the Caucasus region. they have a very recent. From this perspective. hegemons seldom can resist flaunting it-especially when the costs and risks of doing so appear to be low. Bosnia.S. overextension: Conscious both of its overwhelming military superiority and of the fact that no other great powers are capable of restraining its ambitions. The very nature of hegemonic power predisposes dominant powers to overexpand in order to maintain their leading position in the international system. Thus. have it.

Douglas Lummis has said. if we destroy we will be destroyed. The MIC is leading us down a steep canyon of fury. designed to last into perpetuity. While we look over our shoulders for terrorists and evildoers. Rumblings of bringing back the draft are growing louder. enemies must exist. with so many expendable young men and women being conditioned in this so-called "war on terror." MIC will continue its reprogramming of citizen soldiers from peaceful civilians to warmongering killing machines. Reductions in the Pentagon budget threatened the lifeblood of the industry. helping guarantee that the Military Industrial Complex will grow exponentially in power. We are told our nation is in imminent danger. transforming our mass uneasiness into nationalistic and patriotic fervor. blindly descending like a plague of locusts onto foreign land.org/Articles9/Valenzuela_Perpetual-War-Terror. helping assure a swelling wrath of revenge. a lifetime of power. As political scientist and ex-marine C. our freedoms die and are released The so-called "War on Terror" is but a charade. sending them to guide. Power unfettered and unleashed. a terrorist state. manipulating us to believe that what they say and do is We unite behind one common enemy. Terrorists and the countries that harbor them have replaced the Soviet Union and Communists as enemy number one. wars must be created. We have fallen into the mouse trap. ever steadfast to use its weaponry. violence and weapons there is no Pentagon. waiting patiently for the moment to strike. right for us all. conscripting hundreds of thousands of our youth. Brainwashed to believe that War is Peace we sound the drums of war.Hegemony Page 40 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Bad – Interventionism Continuous interventions cause extinction Valenzeula 03 [Manuel “Perpetual War. as the greatest threats to world peace.dissidentvoice. If not. This can be seen in the world’s perception and treatment of us today. In a war without end. After all. Communists and now the everambiguous Terrorists. absorbing our attention. tanks and aircraft operate without pause. We are becoming that which we fear most. those who harbor and live among them. complacent and obedient. again and again. that we are a mushroom cloud waiting to happen. resentment and retaliation against us. the world ominously looks directly at us with both eyes intently focused on the armies of the "Great Satan" and the "Evil Empire. conquering and devouring those who have been deemed enemies of the state. "Good" versus "Evil." that we must inflict death on those who are not with us and on those against us. and if you think your children and grandchildren will escape it. we are also becoming victims of our own making. Empire building needs bodies and drones to go with military might. violence before peace. it grows back bombardment is state terrorism. And so we fear. operate and unleash their products of death. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. profits must be made and the Military Industrial Complex must continue exporting and manufacturing violence and conflict throughout the globe. the American killing machine continues on its path to human extinction. Without war. Profit over people. fails to realize that no amount of money will win this war if the root causes of terrorism are not confronted as priority number one." all for the sake of profit and pillage. The Cold War came to an end and so too the great profits of the MIC. Koreans. If we kill we will be killed. In becoming pre-emptive warmongers. "War is Peace. Indians. fearing for our lives. Mexicans. Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. the MIC will need human flesh from which to recycle those who perish and fall wounded. a fear-engendering escapade. We are programmed to see the world as a conflict between "Us" versus "Them"." that less than admirable distinction is automatically imputed onto the nation as a whole and the citizens in particular. to remain a player.htm)] The Pentagon is the Department of War. instruments of death need trigger fingers and human brains. When hundreds of thousands throughout the planet call Bush "the world’s number one terrorist. without terrorists lurching at every corner. And. you pull out the weed. constant killing and constant sacrifice to the almighty dollar. English. along with Israel. in battles that do not cease." not knowing which nation will be attacked or on whom the storm of satellite-guided-missiles will rain down on next. instilling fear into our lives." "evildoers" and "haters of freedom. Nazis. It is a replacement for a Cold War long ago since retired and unable to deliver a massive increase in defense spending. becoming the subservient slaves of an engine run by greed. as always. There is no war – hence no profit – without evildoers. interested not in peace but constant war. the MIC will grow ever more powerful. weapons must be allocated. and kill some more. ideology and empire. think again. Sam & Megan . in the great tradition of the United States. the terrorism of the rich." Yet the Department of War. A lifetime of combat. marching our sons and daughters to a battle that cannot be won either by sword or gun. a new enemy had to be unearthed. The MIC prays on our human emotions and psychology. But perhaps a perpetual war is what MIC has sought all along. And so to survive. devastating. It is in business to kill. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the anti-state terrorists who have ever lived. 40 Michael. "evil ones. and it is the hands and minds of our best and brightest building and creating these products of decimation. With a war that may go on indefinitely. helping expand a sluggish economy and the interests of the Pax Americana. usurping. exploiting human nature and our still fragile memories of the horrors of 9/11. "Air If you get to the roots. wrapping ourselves up in the flag and the Military Industrial Complex. not Defense. Perpetual Terror” November 27th (http://www. making us a pariah. and. Spanish. a rogue country in the eyes of the world." Today we are seen. pursuing an enemy that lives in shadows and in the haze of ambiguity. bombs. kill. a lifetime of profit. Assembly lines of missiles.

Hegemony Page 41 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Michael. Sam & Megan 41 .

to gain a tenuous hold on power. rather than diminished.Hegemony Page 42 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. That is not entirely a new phenomenon. The United States intervened in two civil wars in the Balkans. That enormous price has been paid for the dubious achievement of enabling a sectarian Shiite government.S. Not only were the perpetrators of the horrific 9-11 terrorist attacks holed up in that country. Ousting that regime was entirely justified. Instead of a rapid and inexpensive U. of course. The crazy-quilt pattern of U. It has already consumed more than $500 billion in direct costs (and perhaps another $1 trillion in indirect costs) and taken the lives of more than 4.000 American soldiers—plus thousands more who have been physically maimed. the Vietnam war. security pledges and military interventions is strong evidence of a foreign policy elite that is intellectually unable to establish priorities or even to develop an analytical framework for assessing strategic choices. Iraq posed no credible military threat to the United States. the United States will persist in a promiscuous security policy. would be difficult to conceive of a more misguided venture. It to remove Saddam Hussein from power with the naive expectation that the transition to a friendly. CATO) major defect in the current U. American military personnel died in Somalia in pursuit of an amorphous mission with little or no strategic value. on a much smaller scale) by sending troops into Lebanon when that country was in the midst of civil war. Heg Causes Interventionism Heg causes interventionism – empirically proven Carpenter 08 vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute The third (Ted. but Afghanistan’s Taliban government had given al Qaeda safe haven.S. heavily influenced by Iran. thankfully. Without it. And. Washington invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to militarily occupy both countries. The initial operation in Afghanistan at least made sense from a security standpoint. Introduction Aug 15. instability in that region. despite the organization’s repeated attacks on American interests. The Bush administration decided thereby ‘‘draining the swamp’’ of popular support for radical Islamic terrorism. Galen. but instead of simply turning over control of Afghanistan to a post-Taliban government with a firm warning not to tolerate the operations of anti-American terrorists. success. Washington stayed on in that country and has pursued an increasingly illdefined. Sam & Megan 42 .S. often internecine.S. Yet it is imperative to have such a framework within which to examine calls to make security commitments or embark on military ventures. U. open-ended nation-building mission. was such an intervention. which may ultimately lead to greater. The intervention in Iraq is an even worse case of sloppy strategic thinking. During the early 1980s. Michael. Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America. putting the lives and fortunes of the American people at risk even when there is no compelling reason to do so. the occupation of Iraq is now in its sixth year with no end in sight. leaders committed a similar blunder (albeit. conflicts. In marked contrast to the rather strong case for invading Afghanistan. A decade later. security strategy is the increased willingness to intervene militarily in murky. One of the worst strategic blunders in American history. democratic government would be quick and easy and that Iraq would become a secular democratic model that would transform politics throughout the Middle East.

chemical. Such “make-believe” wealth has funded many U. financial system. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan began a series of interest rate cuts that vastly increased the money supply.asp?id=2498) A few—and only a few—prescient commentators have questioned whether the U. Making things worse. but they cannot be ignored. which was the first recession in the nation’s history. according Tom J. And of course.S. too much money chasing too few goods. (Ivan. And the simultaneous quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan are leading more and more opinion leaders and taxpayers to this question. Sound familiar? Although President Andrew Jackson got rid of the second bank in the 1830s and the U.S. governments usually commandeer resources from the private sector into the government realm to fund the fighting. Woods. in Public Policy from George Washington University. Congress. First.A. which has led to a more general global financial and economic meltdown. propping up of corrupt dictators there. These may be indirect effects of empire. 9 – Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. the interest rate cuts culminated in the extraordinary policy of lowering the federal funds rate (the rate at which banks lend to one another overnight. in Meltdown.S. the modern day U. So the causal arrow goes from these imperial behaviors—and blowback there from—to increases in the money supply to prevent related economic slowdown. history.org/newsroom/article. had not renewed its charter upon expiration in 1811. economy generally flourished with a freer banking system until 1913. correctly questioning The Bank of the United States’ constitutionality. B. During wartime. This policy allowed the banks to loan the federal government more money to fight the war.D. We have seen that war ultimately causes the creation of both economic problems and nefarious government financial institutions that cause those difficulties. nuclear arsenal would have likely deterred him from using them on the United States. Jr. wars. can sustain its informal global empire in the wake of the most severe economic crisis since World War II. The bubble burst during the Panic of 1819. thus adding to the amount of money chasing the smaller number of consumer goods. According to Thomas E. by earlier flooding the market with excess credit. But what caused the Fed to vastly expand credit? To prevent a potential economic calamity after 9/11 and soothe jitters surrounding the risky and unneeded U. especially Michael. the federal government allowed state-chartered banks to suspend payment in gold and silver to their depositors. But the U. the War of 1812 had two negative effects on the U. M. which as Fed Chairman he has continued as his solution to an economic crisis he helped create using the same measures. The Fed caused the current collapse in the real estate credit market. or even nuclear weapons. Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.S.S.A.S. Get rid of the overseas empire because we can no longer afford it. It does so directly by almost always causing inflation—that is.S. in Economics and Ph. occupation of Muslim lands and U. But the financial turmoil caused by the war led to a second pernicious effect on the financial system—the resurrection of the bank in 1817 in the form of the Second Bank of the United States.Hegemony Page 43 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Hegemony Bad – Economy Hegemony causes economic collapse – current economic crisis proves Eland. the second bank flooded the market with new credit. which in turn caused even worse eventual financial and economic calamities. This action leaves shortages of resources to make consumer goods and their components. And the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary because there was never any connection between al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein. the massive U.S. “How the U.S. For example. That money went into real estate. then a Fed governor. therefore pushing prices up. according to Osama bin Laden. May 11th. http://www.S.S. and even if Saddam had had biological. cities. this led to excessive real estate speculation and a consequent bubble. Empire Contributed to the Economic Crisis”.S. DiLorenzo in Hamilton’s Curse. The result was an annual inflation rate of 55 percent in some U. Sam & Megan 43 . Iowa State University. Like the first bank and all other government central banks in the future. Of course. War has a history of causing financial and economic calamities. Empire also creates such economic maladies and wars that allow those institutions to wreak havoc on the economy. Empire helped cause the meltdown in the first place. invasion of Iraq. central bank existed at the time. which usually determines other interest rates) to only one percent for an entire year (from June 2003 to June 2004). In 1818.S.independent. The Independent Institute. Woods notes that more money was created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of U. in 1814. Much of this excess money ended up creating the real estate bubble that eventually caused the meltdown. governments often times print money to fund the war. the banks did not have to hold sufficient gold and silver reserves to cover their loans. The government took this route of expanding credit during wartime because no U.S. Ben Bernanke. thus creating an artificial bubble that eventually came crashing down in 2008. was an ardent advocate of this easy money policy.B. In other words. the primary reasons for the 9/11 attacks were U. at that time yet another central bank—this time the Federal Reserve System—rose from the ashes.

Michael.Hegemony Page 44 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW when it is partly responsible for the economic distress that is making us poorer. Sam & Megan 44 .

If the United States abandons its current grand strategic role as the protector of international economic openness. Michael. even in time of great power war. Instead of being diminished. This is not true.Hegemony Page 45 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Heg Good – Economy/Free Trade Collapse of heg won’t hurt the economy – global commerce and trade will still continue Layne 06 Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service. A Eurasian hegemon would have a stake in its own economic well-being (both for strategic and domestic political reasons).or if a Eurasian great power war occurs. international trade and investment would be diverted to more geopolitically secure regions.60 If the United States were to adopt an offshore balancing grand strategy. 177-178) Advocates of hegemony (and selective engagement) also seem to have a peculiar understanding of international economics and convey the impression that international trade and investment will come to a grinding halt if the United States abandons its current grand strategy. and it would be most unlikely to hive itself off completely from international trade. Sam & Megan 45 . international economic intercourse will not stop. and these "safe havens"-especially the United States-would be the beneficiaries. Finally. Firms and investors would reassess the risks of overseas trade and investment. however. and over time investment and trade flows would shift in response to these calculations. its own and global markets would adapt to the new political and strategic environment. Texas A&M University (Christopher “The Peace of Illusions” (p. the assumption that a Eurasia dominated by a hegemon would be dosed economically to the United States is dubious.

while those of the elite who brought us to this position are the ones trying futilely to get us out of the mess? Does it matter that demographically the U. military after the Spanishthe Italian and Greek popular movements towards social democracy were subverted. economy is built on a debt structure that is at the moment imploding on itself. from Nicaragua and Guatemala through to Allende's overthrow and Pinochet's reign of disappearances in Chile. had allowed for a democratic vote sponsored by the UN on the joining of North and South Vietnam. the democratic government of Mossadegh was overthrown by joint manipulations of the CIA and British intelligence. remains the sole superpower. all societies would eventually choose that path.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2865093) Kagan starts his arguments with a recognition that the world is "normal again".S. The underlying theme is stated quite clearly near the beginning.S. the American war[2]. http://www.S. life span.S.S. Michael. dominance in military and nuclear technology that other nations can just as readily inflict massive and catastrophic damage to the U. is the sole superpower. pours massive amounts of manure into areas that it sees as "strategic interests". income gaps.Hegemony Page 46 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Heg Promotes Democracy Heg fails to promote democracy – empirically proven The Palestinian Chronicle 8 (IStockAnalyst.S. Al Bawaba 8. the U. Exceptionalism. Vietnam war would never have happened if the U. that history did not end as postulated by Fukuyama an idea that fully supported the jargon and rhetoric of U.? Does it matter that the rest of the world has to continue to live with an arrogant egocentric nation whose rhetoric is far outweighed by its brutal tactics to remain in control? If that defines a superpower.S. military action). poverty rates. "Since democratic capitalism was the most successful model for developing societies. most of the democratic governments of Central America faced subversion and interference from CIA and other U. and expresses it frequently through the work.S. the "perfection of its institutions" and its indispensability.S. While democracy withers on the vine in most areas of U.S. exceptionalism. He is quite confident. intervention (or survives in spite of it after millions of people in opposition to the elites are murdered by death squads. sponsored operatives.S.well. then yes. as noted above. “Robert Kagan’s Mythology of U. that the U. military technology is the most sophisticated (arguably what do we really know about Chinese advances in technology?) when rag tag bands of militias can pin down the majority of active fighting forces in two desolate regions of the world (made desolate by ongoing imperial ambitions and occupation)? Does it matter that regardless of U. with its assumption as being a "successful model". or direct U.S. it's not defined. How much choice is there when democratic governments around the world have been overthrown with great regularity: the Cuban freedom fighters and the Philippino freedom fighters were sidelined by the U.istockanalyst.S.” December 8th.S. with their military and nuclear power (there will be no winners in another world war that is without limits)? Does it matter that the U. with "democratic capitalism". government operatives. and eventually for it being a "chosen" path.S." Problems immediately arise. an argument based on. Does it matter that U. has one of the worst records of the developed nations in what are normally considered indicators of national well-being such as infant mortality rate. the U. again it is presumed to be understood. Sam & Megan 46 .

istockanalyst. extradition.” December 8th. At the centre of Middle East non-democracies is the state of Israel while self-proclaiming its democratic nature it holds millions of Palestinians subject to harsh and internationally illegal treatment in various bantustan style regions. influence are frequent. . not much "choice". Reza Pahlevi (Iran).S. a U.S. Egypt. Michael. cluster bombs. workers conditions. U. Several other factors play an important role here.S. and most obviously currently. Exceptionalism. military forces remain in Iraq regardless of the democratic wishes of the majority of the people who never wanted them there in the first place.S. ranging from Syngman Rhee (Korea).. or countries where a subservient government follows the accepted line. and most European countries as invalid because Hamas was described as a terrorist organization. foreign policy destined to continue under Barak Obama. as they use it frequently themselves (think of carpet bombing. Jordan. As for capitalism. for Israeli policy.S. has supported some notable "autocrats" in its own endeavours to secure resources and markets for its corporate partners. while tending to ignore it when it occurs in countries where they either have no interest. Sam & Megan 47 . much more in the way of services provided for the people. “Robert Kagan’s Mythology of U.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2865093) The U. the U. Suharto (Indonesia).S. has a requirement that many people are poor to produce wealth that others gather to themselves. If the people truly had power. who never hosted terrorists and only had the misfortune of living on huge pools of oil.Hegemony Page 47 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Heg Promotes Democracy Heg fails to promote democracy – Middle East The Palestinian Chronicle 8 (IStockAnalyst. Canada. after the fully democratic elections in which Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian government. the election was denied by the U. allowing it to succeed financially while maintaining an ever tightening noose around the collective Palestinian neck. 'Finance capitalism' has a requirement for cheap politically ineffectual labour. much more in the way of peaceful fair trade globalization initiatives that accounted for the environment. Pinochet (Chile). The first is the unequivocal support of the U. Al Bawaba 8. Government terror does not really bother the U. Finally.S.S. Secondly.S. Currently in the Middle East alone. rather it tends to limit democracy to the elites capable of hanging onto power by using their wealth and power to pervert or subjugate a real democratic process. their would be a much more equitable distribution of wealth. and care of the citizens of the producing countries. So far. http://www. Iraq and the other Middle East countries listed above. supports Israel with more than $3 billion in aid money per annum. and more than likely. torture. Autocrats under the U. and Saudi Arabia are bought off with massive aid programs and petrodollar purchases of military goods that are essentially useless. chemical weapons). to the current crop in Afghanistan. not much democracy. it does not require democracy to flourish. has a requirement that the masses indebt themselves to the corporate wealthy who in turn seek succour from their buddies in government when times get rough.

political. Spring 04) The hegemony and human rights dilemmas suggest that obstacles to strengthening the role of international human rights law in U.4 million worldwide. and cholera--once thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. in all likelihood. the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders. leadership public health capabilities within and among countries may not keep pace with the demands and dangers generated by accelerated microbial resilience.[198] Maintaining or enhancing U. while old diseases mutate and adapt.S. and U. the main lines of defense against this threat have not the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. hegemony. The HIV/AIDS problem illustrates the difficulty of fighting the axis of illness in a unipolar world. “Biological weapons: A plague upon all houses. and globalization Disease spread will cause extinction Steinbruner 98 Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution [John D. Malaria. human mobility. including nearly one-quarter of Western some 20 variations of the mv virus have infected an estimated 29. The Bush Administration argued in the National Security Strategy that it wanted to preserve and enhance U.S.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Europe's population at the time. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge. foreign policy on global health means that the United States has less interest in. military. and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. U.S. human mobility. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health. and globalization risk factors behind the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other infectious disease threats. Since its recognized appearance in 1981. The United States has strong political. The rapid growth rate of the total world population. and less well-developed policies respecting. Human Rights. In the long course of evolution. so far.[200] The dominance of the Westphalian framework in U. without U. but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole. with 1. security.” Foreign Policy. Throughout history. hegemony ensures that stimulation of these risk factors will occur without significant opposition and barriers.S. Foreign Policy” Harvard Human Rights Journal. commerce. plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century.S.. in order to deal effectively with threats to U. and investment. Batman Faculty Fellow. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS remain beyond the Bush Administration’s neoconservatism.S. the risk factors of social determinants of health and collective action problems.S. national security.S. in addressing these risk factors more forthrightly. make the axis of illness more rather than less dangerous. Vol 17. such as the threat posed by the axis of evil.[199] Pursuit of these interests will stimulate the microbial resilience.S. there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. Indiana University School of Law Bloomington (David. Michael.A undoubtedly a key to our survival that. especially in the military realm. tuberculosis. U. and economic interests in deepening and expanding international trade. changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. An infectious agent believed to have been the It s a considerable comfort and depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. Sam & Megan 48 . “Fighting the Axis of Illness: HIV/AIDS. hegemony means that.Hegemony Page 48 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Bad – Disease Hegemony causes infectious disease spread Fidler 04 Professor of Law and Ira C. Dec 22. and economic hegemony will. As we enter the twenty-first century.

The United States. The same dynamics apply – or would. It recognizes that instability – caused by the rise and fall of great powers. but at a staggering cost. for instance. and peripheral land campaigns in North Africa and Italy. Great powers that border restive neighbors. in December of 1941 – to relatively low-cost strategic air bombardment of Germany. as they coalesce against what they perceive as an American threat. What if a sullen and resentful China were to align itself with Islamic fundamentalist groups? Such a situation is hardly beyond the realm of possibility. followed a similar strategy during World War II. this strategy embraces it. gaining in strength as other great powers fought debilitating wars. getting rich. policymakers to adopt a very different grand strategy: one that might be called offshore balancing. Sam & Megan 49 . A strategy of preponderance is burdensome. and America's very primacy accelerates this process. and profoundly risky. Louis XIV. By then the Red Army – which inflicted about 88 percent of the Wehrmacht's casualties throughout the war – had mortally weakened Germany. however. And if the offshore balancer must intervene. rather than burden sharing. It would naturally be in their interests to do so. Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute [Benjamin and Christopher “A New Grand Strategy” Atlantic Monthly.S. if the United States gave them a chance – in regional conflicts. America must intervene only to prevent a single power from dominating a strategically crucial area – and then only if the efforts of great powers with a larger stake in that region have failed to redress the imbalance. the only two great powers in modern history that successfully devolved onto others the responsibility for maintaining regional stability are Britain during its great-power heyday (1700-1914) and the United States (until 1945). Instead of sending big armies to fight costly Continental wars. If. Britain. Hungary and Romania. a predominant power seems to be winning. If Washington continues to follow an adult-supervision strategy. these states would maintain power balances. And even in wartime offshore balancers have enjoyed advantages that Continental powers have not. which treats its "allies" as irresponsible adolescents and China and Russia as future enemies to be suppressed. check the rise of overly ambitious global and regional powers. Japan) or outside it (China. Rather than fear multipolarity. partners form alliances not because they are friends. its relations with these emerging great powers will be increasingly dangerous. Britain and the United States reaped enormous strategic dividends. Often they will do so expeditiously. obviating the offshore balancer's intervention. or because they have common values. because if one lives in a dangerous neighborhood. Offshore balancing accepts that the United States cannot prevent the rise of new great powers. and Napoleon). and two very big ones for the United States – that kept predatory Eurasian great powers at bay . the United States would allow them to develop their militaries to provide for their own national and regional security. The United States was more than happy to delay the invasion of Europe until June of 1944. London and Washington could afford to maintain militaries smaller than those of Continental powers. and stuck its allies with the greater part of the blood price of defeating those powers that aspired to dominate the Continent. So Michael. relied on its navy to blockade those states bidding for mastery of Europe and on its financial power to underwrite coalitions against them. but because they fear someone else more than they fear each other. But that is not even the worst conceivable outcome. an offshore balancer can intervene decisively to forestall its victory (as Britain did against Philip II. Among themselves. then. either within the present American sphere (the European Union. Historically. Sisyphean. have a much larger interest than does the United States in policing those areas. say. and the Persian Gulf. In fact. While they were shielded from threatening states by geography. this has seldom been an option. on the other hand. It's always safest and cheapest to get others to stabilize the turbulent regions of the globe. It is therefore time for U. an offshore balancer can be confident that those others will attempt to defend themselves. Because the security of others is most immediately at risk. Offshore balancers can afford to be bystanders in the opening stages of conflict. although not quite as dramatically. and concentrate instead on Often they could stay out of Europe's turmoil entirely. Most regional power balances (the relative positions of. Instead of exhausting its resources and drawing criticism or worse by keeping these entities weak. and thus not as formidable as it was for those who had the geopolitical misfortune to constitute the first line of defense. one must be prepared to protect oneself from troublemakers rather than relying on someone else to do so. January 1st] The rise of new great powers is inevitable. of course. Taken together. the state aspiring to dominance will already have been at least somewhat bloodied. They were able to do so because they had moats – a narrow one for England. the experiences of Britain and America highlight the central feature of the offshore balancing strategy: it allows for burden shifting. East Asia.Hegemony Page 49 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing 1NC Refusing to allow the rise of new powers fails and ensures great power conflict – abandoning a strategy of hegemony would force smaller powers to take care of regional problems Schwarz and Layne 02 Editor of the Atlantic. and stabilize Europe. a resurgent Russia). great-power rivalries. or that are economically dependent on unstable regions. or of one sub-Saharan state and another) need not concern the United States. From 1940 to 1944 it confined its role in the European war to providing economic assistance and munitions to the Soviet Union and Britain and – after entering the war. and messy regional conflicts – is a geopolitical fact of life. Germany. As offshore balancers.

that is. opportunistic and self-serving. In fostering a multipolar world – in which the foreign and national-security policies of the emerging great powers will be largely devoted to their rivalries with one another and to quelling and containing regional instability – an offshore balancing strategy is. the United States can minimize the risks of open confrontation with the new great powers. Michael. By abandoning the "preponderance" strategy's extravagant objectives. and major regional powers as well. But it also exercises restraint and shows geopolitical respect.Hegemony Page 50 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW for an offshore balancing strategy to work. of course. the world must be multipolar. there must be several other great powers. onto which the United States can shift the burden of maintaining stability in various parts of the world. Sam & Megan 50 . For America the most important grand-strategic issue is what relations it will have with these new great powers.

If regional powers grow strong enough to threaten their neighbors—and perhaps ultimately threaten the United States—local actors will wish to balance that power. Indeed. Many officials appear afraid of a global environment with several economic and military great rather than resisting a return to a more historically normal condition of multipolarity – a process that is occurring gradually in any case. U. but. but direct action is the wrong way to go about it. October 1) Encourage multiple centers of power. regardless of American preferences – Washington should accept that change and turn it to America’s advantage. but it should be stingy in this regard. powers and an assortment of mid-sized regional powers. offshore balancing prevents escalation and inter-regional conflict. it also permits the United States to wait. though. no danger of conquest or intimidation from those more powerful. The presence of other significant political and military players in the international system can provide us with important security buffers. for example. should wage the war on terror.S. Sam & Megan 51 . any power position that allows a country to even think about running the world ought to provide ample capability for defense. Even that outcome would usually serve American interests. regional multipolarity would involve more-informal balance-of-power arrangements.S. Fixing Foreign Policy: How the U. air and space enables such assistance. In most cases. “The Case for Restraint” The American Interest. a development that would provide significant indirect security benefits to the United States. This capability should cast a stabilizing shadow in any case. the mere existence of multiple powers – even if some of them are not especially friendly to the United States – makes it less likely that a hegemonic threat comparable to the Soviet Union could arise again. Protecting this power position is an important goal.Hegemony Page 51 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Good – Solves War Even if wars do occur. U.S. Michael. Ideally. command of the sea. But Regional balancing and favorable geography make the US a capable offshore balancer Posen 07 Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT and Director of the MIT Security Studies Program [Barry R. especially if those players are stable and democratic. coupled with a favorable geographic position. The country is in The power position of the United States is excellent. Others should get organized and dig into their own pockets before the United States shows up to help. territorial integrity is secure. November/December] We can well afford to think this way because extant threats to the United States are not threats to U. sovereignty. such states would forge effective regional security organizations – a more robust European Union. The United States should preserve an ability to help out if necessary. Regional powers would be the principal firebreaks against disorder and aggression in their respective spheres of influence. Carpenter 02 Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Ted Galen.” Reason.S.

and Bolivarian Latin America. pp. Keele University (Vassilis and Bulent. Sam & Megan 52 . it is counterproductive and dangerous. it becomes increasingly clear that Latin America. before the case is lost. the contours of our proposal can be drawn from Layne’s work.” History and realist theories teach us that one does not have to be a communist in order to be an enemy. and Russia can be balanced by the “American Colossus” — the phrase belongs to Niall Ferguson — who.”12 So do John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their various contributions. this would result in enormous savings that could be invested productively.Hegemony Page 52 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Good – General Offshore balancing deters wars and maintains US power Fouskas and Gokay 08 professor of international relations at the University of Piraeus and Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of European Studies Programme SPIRE. Christopher Layne. Summer 2008. China and Southeast Asia. The new president must think how to reshape a democratic partnership with the southern neighbors. Europe. but a new challenge for managing the complexities of a multicentric and polyarchic world in the making. and the country should stop going to war in order to restore it. after all. Who said that US hegemony in the management of the world from 1941 to 2001. In fact. as well as from a Keynesian set of policy guidelines meant to boost aggregate demand management and resuscitate the US domestic economy on a solid neo-industrial and environmentally friendly base. In brief. Number 3. Thousands of agencies would be assigned new tasks abroad. as Paul [End Page 112] Nitze’s famous National Security Council – 68 document envisaged back in 1950. China. The famous hub-and-spoke system of US global governance built in the 1940s and 1950s is in tatters. argues in favor of a new US strategy based on “off-shore balancing. Washington can no longer act as the governing center of global capitalism. Foot soldiers and most bases should come back home. Capitalist enemies exist too. both enemies and friends now are all capitalists. is not a poodle. its off-shore oceanic strategy. in his latest contribution. and in a timely manner.Volume 19. This is not a return to isolationism. the United States needs to substantiate an offshore balancing strategy by way of launching a new dialogue with the other major global centers: Europe. Western Hemisphere is a given? After Hugo Chavez. while reflecting upon. It is not a bad idea. it is not a given that a postare even more dangerous if you fail to address their concerns methodically. a hegemon who is threatening national security interests. Michael. 99-114) In order to do the above in the domestic sphere. Such a Castro/postcommunist Cuba will become a friendly “banana-boat. and they wellthought-out strategy will give time to the United States to concentrate on rebuilding its domestic and near-abroad economic and social tissues. The Peace of Illusions. professionally. the workshop of US global hegemony as Greg Grandin put it. Further. Mediterranean Quarterly An Agenda for the Next American President Mediterranean Quarterly . Instead. and some would be redeployed back home in order to focus on a different set of priorities drawn from economic and other social needs. and refining. needs time to recover from the global Balance Russia and China from the Pacific and Europe and Africa from the Atlantic and intervene only if or when a regional hegemon tends to rise. the United States must reshape its grand strategy accordingly.

newsweek. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. We need a radically different strategy for the region. Ph. both came to view the United States as a bitter enemy. the debacle there shows no sign of ending soon. As a result.” November 29th. But—and this is the key point—America would put boots on the ground only if the local balance of power seriously broke down and one country threatened to dominate the others. offshore balancing would ameliorate America's terrorism problem. from Cornell University (John J. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. Washington would remain diplomatically engaged. the United States began trying to contain both. And "balancing" would mean we'd rely on regional powers like Iran. Sam & Megan 53 . compelling reason to adopt this approach is that nothing else has worked. The policy also required the United States to deploy large numbers of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran is quickly moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent. Despite Barack Obama's promises to withdraw from Iraq. “Middle East: Know the Limits of U. First. Power. After the Gulf war. interests. Iraq and Saudi Arabia to check each other. “Middle East: Know the Limits of U.com/id/171261) The United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East.A. The strategy has three particular virtues. 8 – R.D. it merely needs to ensure that no other country does. Then..” November 29th. The United States would station its military forces outside the region.com/id/171261) Offshore balancing is nothing new: the United States pursued such a strategy in the Middle East quite successfully during much of the Cold War.S. B. from West Point. there is a strategy that has proved effective in the past and could serve again today: "offshore balancing. the United States assembled a multinational coalition to smash Saddam Hussein's military machine. from Cornell University (John J. which helped persuade Osama bin Laden to declare war on America. Offshore balancing has been empirically effective at solving Middle Eastern conflict and terrorism Mearsheimer.D. Ph.S. Third.S.. Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will require Washington to address Iran's legitimate security concerns and to refrain from overt threats. when Iraq's conquest of Kuwait in 1990 threatened to tilt things in Baghdad's favor." It's less ambitious than President Bush's grand plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. Fortunately. Hamas rules in Gaza.Hegemony Page 53 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Good – Middle East Offshore balancing solves Middle Eastern instability Mearsheimer.A. Newsweek. Foreign occupiers generate fierce resentment. Newsweek. 8 – R. Second. http://www. Michael. from West Point. offshore balancing would reduce fears in Iran and Syria that the United States aims to attack them and remove their regimes—a key reason these states are currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. It would also use its air and naval power to respond quickly to unexpected threats. and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a conflict. the Clinton administration pursued a "dual containment" strategy: instead of using Iraq and Iran to check each other. Power. B. it would significantly reduce the chances that we would get involved in another bloody and costly war like Iraq. but it would be much better at protecting actual U.newsweek. America doesn't need to control the Middle East with its own forces. America helped Iraq contain revolutionary Iran in the 1980s. Keeping America's military forces out of sight would minimize the anger created by having them stationed on Arab soil. http://www. A final.

Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (Stephen M. Specifically. (By limiting military commitments overseas.Hegemony Page 54 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Good – War Offshore balancing is comparatively superior – it captures the benefits of hegemony without the costs. it merely needs to ensure that they do not fall under the control of a hostile great power and especially not under the control of a so-called peer competitor. But it is not a passive strategy and does not preclude using the full range of America’s power to advance its core interests.” and it would not try to use American military power to impose democracy on other countries or disarm potential proliferators. Offshore balancing does not preclude using power for humanitarian ends—to halt or prevent genocide or mass murder—but the United States would do so only when it was confident it could prevent these horrors at an acceptable cost. Offshore balancing assumes that only a few areas of the globe are of strategic importance to the United States (that is.) The United States would still be prepared to use force when it was directly threatened—as it was when the Taliban allowed al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan—and would be prepared to help other governments deal with terrorists that also threaten the United States. "In the National Interest: A new grand strategy for American foreign policy. Michael. and the Persian Gulf.. and would thus make it less likely that the United States would have to intervene in far-flung places where it is not welcome. through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the WTO and through close ties with specific regional allies. the United States deploys its power abroad only when there are direct threats to vital American interests. industrialized Asia. it takes advantage of America’s favorable geopolitical position and exploits the tendency for regional powers to worry more about each other than about the United States. Available Online at http://bostonreview. the United States would intervene with its own forces only when regional powers are unable to uphold the balance of power on their own. It husbands the power upon which this primacy rests and minimizes the fear that this power provokes. February/March. the vital areas are the regions where there are substantial concentrations of power and wealth or critical natural resources: Europe. offshore balancing is not isolationist. Over time. which has been America’s traditional grand strategy." Boston Review. it reduces the danger of being drawn into unnecessary conflicts and encourages other states to do more for us. Under this strategy. By setting clear priorities and emphasizing reliance on regional allies. a strategy of offshore balancing would make it less likely that the United States would face the hatred of radicals like bin Laden. however. Walt.net/BR30. Most importantly. To prevent rival great powers from doing this. Sam & Megan 54 . an offshore-balancing strategy would make it easier for the United States to intervene in cases of mass murder or genocide. 5 – Academic Dean and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. In this strategy. worth fighting and dying for). But it would no longer keep large numbers of troops overseas solely for the purpose of “maintaining stability. offshore balancing prefers to rely primarily on local actors to uphold the regional balance of power. Equally important.1/walt. Offshore balancing further recognizes that the United States does not need to control these areas directly. The United States would still be actively engaged around the world.html) The final option is offshore balancing. Offshore balancing is the ideal grand strategy for an era of American primacy.

As Slate reported. the “multipolar” look of the future world order seems most likely. America will have to function within a constellation of regional political and economic powerbrokers. http://www. as occurred in 1914-18 when an earlier phase of globalisation came to a halt." Standing out among other nations. The World in 2009.html) If the consequences of a prolonged economic recession are unpredictable." These predictions are proving to be well founded.' The new 'arriviste powers' — not only China and India. Even before the financial crisis.fpif. U.." Michael. “Despite the recent financial volatility. January 27th. Author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Mark. Foreign Policy In Focus. Some sort of new structure of global governance will be essential to reflect redistribution of power. Russia and Brazil are all likely to be players at the top table. at least relative to that of other countries. “Empire Foreclosed. older industrialised nations cannot handle the global crisis. http://www. India and Indonesia.are fraught with risks. "Multipolarity" has become the watchword of the day. the post-Bush United States seems to see its place in the world a little differently: less American exceptionalism. are likely to be early casualties of the economic crisis. albeit an influential one. However.” the NIC report says. 09 (Quentin Peel. the presence of China. Indonesia.” Multipolarity is inevitable – there will be an international realignment in the coming decades Engler. India.S. and G8 including Russia. emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones... Apart from the US and China. Without China and India at the table. government intelligence sources predicted a significant international realignment over the next two decades. and provide a form of guidance and regulation. one pole in the world will be Europe. According to the London Independent. there will no longer be a sole superpower. Instead. That could aggravate transatlantic tensions.ft. "the voice of the United States was one. Japan. it was "a summit that show[ed] the new balance of power. and perhaps others — will accelerate this erosion by pursuing 'strategies designed to exclude or isolate the United States' in order to 'force or cajole' us into playing by their rules.org/fpiftxt/6049) Even if the United States weathers the crisis with its economy more or less intact. but also Brazil. among others…. In the G20. among others. most political observers believe that its power will diminish in coming years. “Historically. the G20 summit put a version of a multipolar order on display." There. "China made its shy debut as a rising power. calling the shots.com/cms/s/0/c76ec956-ec79-11dd-a534-0000779fd2AC. the document argued that in the year 2020 "the United States will remain 'an important shaper of the international order' — probably the single most powerful country — but its 'relative power position' will have 'eroded. In early 2005..” April 17th. gives a foretaste of a future world order. nor a soft landing. Sam & Megan 55 . It will not be an easy transition. “Risks rise in shift to a Multipolar World”.we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown of the international system. The Group of Seven (G7) leading industrialised nations. By inclination or by necessity. Less certain will be the influence of individual countries in the Middle East. the National Intelligence Council released a 119-page report entitled Mapping the Global Future. the next 20 years of transition.Hegemony Page 55 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Multipolarity Inevitable The transition to multipolarity is inevitable – There will be a fundamental redistribution of power Financial Times. Africa and the rest of Latin America. more consensus-seeking. In a multipolar order. the United States. 09 – Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy in Focus.

he concluded. 09 – President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends. In the past decade. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 5. While this is a region traditionally regarded as the U. Latin American voters have consistently beaten Prime Minister Brown to his insight about the dysfunction of the Washington Consensus. The unipolar era is over – China and Russia are helping transition to a multipolar world Hudson. Medvedev called for China. stocks and real estate in exchange for paper money of questionable worth. Medvedev spelled out. countries such as Bolivia. Especially upsetting is its military spending.S. imperial backyard. Sam & Megan 56 . 09 – Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy in Focus.” Mr.” April 17th. Countries like Argentina. whether the still-unrivaled U. financed by a growing deficit. But in crafting something different it should be conscientious to "first do no harm.php?context=va&aid=13969) What may prove to be the last rites of American hegemony began already in April at the G-20 conference. http://www. The Obama White House is right to reject Bush administration militarism. should reject interventionist policies and accept a slow transition to multipolarity Engler. Author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Mark. and its worldwide network of military bases will continue to qualify it as an imperial power — or whether other language more accurately describes its sway within an emerging multipolar system — will remain open to debate. But we will have moved closer to the day when "enlightened" and "selfconfident" foreign administrators. its cultural reach. and thus growing debts. Global Research. The outcomes have been promising. even before the current crisis. Kansas City (Michael. which has recently experienced a form of benign neglect. such as the stepped-up US military aid to Georgia announced just last week. Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri. is based on “one big centre of consumption.S. regional financial structures to allow for greater independence. which suffered tremendously under Washington-backed neoliberalism. Michael. are permanently retired. Russia and India to “build an increasingly multipolar world order. the Obama administration should recognize that some of the most dynamic democratic processes in the world have been taking place in Latin America.” http://www. when Washington focused on its engagements in the Middle East.ca/index.”2 At the root of the global financial crisis. whether in pith helmets or cuff links. is that the United States makes too little and spends too much.org/fpiftxt/6049) A key step in moving toward a post-imperial foreign policy would be to abandon the idea that the United States is at its best when it intervenes. one formerly strong reserve currency. As a result. the NATO missile shield in Eastern Europe and the US buildup in the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia. which has one of the poorest populations in the hemisphere. it was often overlooked in the Bush years.Hegemony Page 56 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Multipolarity Inevitable The U. when Mr. In that case. "The artificially maintained unipolar system.” What this means in plain English is: We have reached our limit in subsidizing the United States’ military encirclement of Eurasia while also allowing the US to appropriate our exports. In country after country they have elected new leaders with mandates to break with the international financial institutions and to pursue new economic policies. As it considers alternatives. militarily or economically. companies. “Empire Foreclosed. and became even more explicit at the St. have been devising more equitable ways of distributing natural resource wealth — and more democratic ways of involving historically marginalized indigenous populations in the political process. economy." Reviving a version of corporate globalization under the guise of a return to multilateralism would violate this dictum. Wall Street Financial Analyst.S. and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks. Foreign Policy In Focus. an inward focus by the Obama administration on dealing with the domestic implications of the economic crisis would be welcome. have worked to develop alternative. To the extent that it allows such experiments to progress.globalresearch.fpif. “De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire.

hegemony is likely to remain the recurring obsession of its official imagination. “The Tyranny of False Vision: America’s Unipolar Fantasy. But that lesson faded without forcing Americans to abandon the old fantasies of omnipotence. p. Survival. Michael. B. suffered severe setbacks before. until the fall of the Soviet Union provided an irresistible occasion for their return. 8 – Professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Issue 5. 61-78. the ideacutee fixe of its foreign policy.. the Soviet Union proved a greater danger to America's equilibrium in its collapse than in its heyday.A. Arguably. From Yale University (David P. Volume 50. America's hegemonic ambitions have. These merely went into remission. and PhD.” October) It is tempting to believe that America's recent misadventures will discredit and suppress the country's hegemonic longings and that. a new administration will abandon them. following the presidential election of 2008.Hegemony Page 57 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Obama Changes Hegemony Obama can’t change perceptions of US hegemony – power remains a central component of US foreign policy Calleo. Sam & Megan 57 . But so long as the nation's identity is intimately bound up with seeing itself as the world's most powerful country. Less than half a century has passed since the 'lesson of Vietnam'. after all.

It was not until the late 1950s that the diminished status of Great Britain and France was widely recognized and the adjective "great" was finally dropped when the two countries were mentioned. the incoming president. are not always immediately apparent. central bankers and the government. and help bring peace to the Holy Land. the two leading imperial powers. Former Professor at American University. Even at that time.especially in the Middle diplomacy and national security policy. Palestinian peace process.A. Lebanon. The confluence of these negative factors has significantly eroded Washington's diplomatic and political clout.) All that is lacking. and an effective Holy Land peacemaker. The Daily Star. will be forced to recognize that reality sooner or later. pundits and the public recognize its effect on the global balance of power.” http://www. in International Relations from American University (Leon T. in 2009. will reinforce this trend. as a consequence of the Iraq war. The mess the Bush administration made in the Middle East. Hadar. Notwithstanding strong opposition from Washington. Sam & Megan 58 . like others in Washington. War II. Ph. coupled with the dramatic loss of American financial resources. The CATO Institute. which devastated the military and economic power of Britain and France. officials and journalists continued to refer to those two declining nation-states as Great Powers. There is.S. in the jargon of economics.. is no longer a global hegemon – Even Obama can’t jump start our credibility again. a recognition lag between the time when an economic shock. 9 – Research Fellow at the Cato Institute. and the Israelis and the Palestinians were led by strong and more moderate leaderships than today. from Columbia University. M. The conventional wisdom is that a more visionary and competent Obama administration will be able to reassert America's global leadership role . In 2000. This is not the first time there has been a lag between when an international crisis. has produced a longterm transformation in the balance of power in the region and worldwide. such as South Asia and the Caucasus. (Some pundits seem to assume a similar peacemaking model can be implemented in other troubled regions as well.Hegemony Page 58 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Obama Changes Hegemony The U. The increasing wariness of the American public regarding new US military interventions.S. by reenergizing the United States' diplomatic influence and emphasizing Washington's commitment to play the role of an honest broker. just like changes in economic conditions. such as a military conflict or a loss of geostrategic standing. occurs and the time when it is recognized by economists. While the US does not now occupy the same kind of drastically weakened geopolitical position that Britain and France did after World we must recognize that it is no longer a global hegemon. Such assumptions about US omnipotence are woefully out of touch with reality. will revive the dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. With an overstretched military and an economy in recession. end of the Cold War. Washington could not significantly advance an Israeli- There is little reason to expect that Obama will be an exception. is enlightened leadership and American willpower. “The U.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9937) Changes in the status and power of nations. where US military power was overstretched to the maximum.several months after it began. In the aftermath of World War II. a charismatic and cosmopolitan President Barack Obama. is no longer a global Hegemon. And recognition lag might well be why officials and pundits are now failing to recognize the detrimental impact of the combination of the Iraq war and the financial crisis on America's standing in the international system. and the Palestinian territories. Some attribute Washington's current difficulties in dictating global developments to the Bush administration's mismanagement of US According to that logic. such as a sudden boom or bust.cato. Michael. takes place and the time when officials. the United States was at the apex of international power in a unipolar world. Recognition lag explains why. while Hizbullah was once again invited to join the government in Lebanon. as it was during the first decade or so after the Even the most visionary and competent US president will be that much more constrained in his ability to "do something" when an international crisis takes place. for example. Israel decided to open negotiations with Syria. overcome the many obstacles to a political settlement. That the US has already been losing some of its leverage has been demonstrated by Washington's failure to contain the rising power of Iran and Tehran's growing influence through surrogates in Iraq. economists have only recently acknowledged the current economic recession . supposedly. East.D.

Hegemony Page 59 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Michael. Sam & Megan 59 .

Hegemony Page 60 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW ***HEGEMONY GOOD*** Michael. Sam & Megan 60 .

the United States should lead the world to stop them. We could still do more to mobilize multilateral pressure on the Sudanese government and on China. 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. We cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if they do not trust our leadership. constructively but firmly. Foreign Affairs. and a country from Africa as permanent members. We must restore our commitment to international law and to multilateral cooperation. 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 Michael. we must rebuild our alliances. not control.and toward enforcing that norm through international institutions and multilateral measures. We need a New Realism based on the understanding that what goes on inside of other countries profoundly impacts us -but that we can only influence. The norm of absolute territorial sovereignty is moot when national governments partner with those who rape. To be effective in the coming decades. A New Realism A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. And when genocide or other grave human rights violations begin. We should reward countries that live up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. America must hold itself to a higher standard of leadership. 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. no one else will. The United States should lead the world toward acceptance of a greater norm of respect for basic human rights -. which has great influence over Sudan. the twenty-first century must understand that to solve our own problems. First and foremost.if we are to work with them to solve global problems.an ethical. we need to work with other governments that respect and trust us. Jan/Feb) we need a New Realism in our foreign policy -. because the two worst genocides in recent history have taken place there. Japan. This means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). A New Realism for To cope with this new world. what goes on inside of other countries. We need to restore respect and appreciation for our allies -. as we negotiate. We need to start taking human rights in Africa particularly seriously. and kill masses of people.and for the democratic values that unite us -. a country from Latin America.Hegemony Page 61 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Internal Links – Human Rights Credibility Kt Heg Human rights credibility is key to heg Richardson 08 Governor of New Mexico. We must be impeccable in our own respect for human rights. America must set the following priorities. History teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending genocide. We failed to stop the killing in Rwanda. Sam & Megan 61 . in Rwanda and now in Darfur. torture. with those who do not. India. and for years we have failed to stop the killing in Darfur.

not even relative to other powers. but that is because American allies. can match the scale of damage to America's position in the world. despite the polls. and Iraq. as measured by global polls. which was once an adversary. too. there has been no fundamental strategic realignment. In the 1950s and 1960s. the assassinations of John F. America's is growing. the Watts riots. Is America's image today worse than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s. and Watergate? Does anyone recall that millions of anti-American protesters took to the streets in Europe in those years? Today. Make no mistake America is thriving. In 1979. Longtime American allies remain allies. have systematically neglected their defenses. NYT Nov 1. And I'm confident the American people would take a dim view if he tried. The "loss" of China to communism. and continues to outpace them technologically. so is every other major economy. While the Chinese and Russian militaries are both growing." But he warns. American military power is unmatched. the My Lai massacre. as Zakaria notes. the stirrings of postcolonial nationalism in Indochina -. President Bush has managed to restore closer relations with allies in Europe and Asia. the central pillar of American strategy toppled when the pro-American Shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. the Soviet testing of a hydrogen bomb. Contrast this with the strategic setbacks the United States suffered during the Cold War. which will pose strategic problems. Yes. the United States is not in decline. the world's largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore and the largest casino in Macau. "The United States cannot dominate. and the next president will be able to improve them even further. "But what about Iraq?" Yet even in the Middle East. 11. Kennedy. dictate and always have its way? Many declinists imagine a mythical past when the world danced to America's tune. it is against China. Its share of the global economy last year was about 21 percent. Although the United States is suffering through a financial crisis. and if any balancing is occurring. but the practical effects of this are far from clear. much less dictate. No event in the past decade. Many would say. the pan-Arab nationalist movement swept out pro-American governments and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement. where America's image has suffered most as a result of that war. America's image is certainly damaged. compared with about 23 percent in 1990. Sam & Megan 62 . Russian and Chinese power is growing relative to their neighbors and their regions. 22 percent in 1980 and 24 percent in 1960. Russia and Iran.Hegemony Page 62 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – General 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. especially in Europe. 2008) the evidence of American decline is weak. with the Vietnam War. as Yet well as with Syria. But nations such as India are drawing closer to America. Sober analysts such as Richard Haass acknowledge that the United States remains "the single most powerful entity in the world. But by more serious measures of power. That produced a fundamental shift in the strategic balance from which the United States is still suffering. Meanwhile. with the exception of Sept. Realist theorists have consistently predicted for the past two decades that the world would "balance" against the United States. including a quasi-alliance between Moscow and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser. the adaptable American economy will be the first to come out of recession and may actually find its position in the global economy enhanced. So perhaps a little perspective is in order. Nothing similar has occurred as a result of the Iraq war. But when was it not? Was there ever a time when the United States could dominate. Nostalgia swells for the wondrous American-dominated era after World War II. If the past is any guide. and expect that others will follow." That is true. but between 1945 and 1965 the United States actually suffered one calamity after another. is now an ally.each proved a strategic setback of the first order. Michael. the North Korean invasion of South Korea. And each was beyond America's power to control or even to manage successfully. The good news is that I doubt either nominee really will. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. The danger of today's declinism is not that it is true but that the next president will act as if it is.

is only 5 percent of our national output. and move large numbers of their people out of poverty. a trifle diminished although not mortally wounded. a staggering $700 billion. America’s back-up systems are enormous. with about 20% of the world’s product. The Chinese know Asia's bloody history. Soviet – had no such back-up systems. The British held on because of the City of London and a lot of useful naval bases. 30 in China (the data include Hong Kong and Taiwan). a survey of universities placing in the top 500 globally. (Fouad. conducted by Shanghai University. these societies. No one in that tinderbox wants a Pax Iranica. While some may seek to write the obituaries of the American imperial republic. The Chinese hold well over a trillion dollars in American treasury securities. The destiny of the American empire is still unfolding. They take knocks on the head. Sam & Megan 63 . But Edward Gibbon wannabes should proceed with caution. 10/12) Well. They came. its willingness to defend the global order. The Resilience of American Power) There can be no doubt that we were due for our moment of reckoning. published his first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776. American hegemony has been benign. For all the talk about the rise of China and India. They hold on. under American primacy and tutelage. and the Indians and the Europeans are not contenders to assume what has been America's role. the Hapsburgs. and 2 in India. working in London.Hegemony Page 63 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – General 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. Japanese. This is not an imperium that will tumble into the sand overnight. It is one thing to argue that the United States has been weakened by fiscal extravagance and military overstretch. plus a bankruptcy or two. are in no position to inherit the American place in the order of nations. It is a separate thing to recall that. After the partisanship in our country subsides. its sense of obligation to other lands. The Hapsburgs held on because they had an army that could operate in 14 languages. and the alternatives to it are infinitely worse. long mired in poverty and squalor and handicapped by dominant traditions of inequality and caste. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins University. massive R&D spending. an extremely strong demographic profile and the best agricultural acreage-to-population ratio among all the large nations. It is not yet time to pen The Decline and Fall of the American Empire. It is a supergreat-power. But one of the “rise and fall” lessons of history is that great powers (the Ottomans. slow down a minute. because they have massive resources. gave the United States a huge lead in such institutions: 159 versus 31 in Japan. Rome was long dead and buried when Gibbon. 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. Michael. the British) take an awful long time to collapse. The short-lived 20th-century empires – Nazi. Richardson Dilworth Professor of History at Yale University (Paul “Is this the end of the American era?” Times of London. the country could afford it. They lack the openness of the United States. They are content to work and prosper. 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. The bailout package. they suffer a defeat and humiliation here or there. Oct 29. Likewise in the volatile Persian Gulf: The commerce of that vital region and the traffic of its oil depend upon the American Navy. Heg sustainable – small shifts in power are inevitable Kennedy 08 J. Often they hold on because the rising powers don’t know how to replace them. a highly sophisticated services industry to complement its industrial base. too. But they hold on. shrewd about the ways of the world. 50% of its military expenditures and most of its top research universities. The Chinese. acknowledge this. from century to century economic and military balances do shift gradually from one country or part of the world to another. regardless of regime follies. They are not about to bring the house down. they went.

president of the New York-based National Committee on American Foreign Policy.000 people per year--hardly the way to great-power status. Says George Schwab. nevertheless. China is also graying quickly. a leading French strategic thinker." Mead says--but the damage is mostly reversible. compared with 9 percent in the Vietnam War. including the euro and the Chinese renminbi. Through its acceptance of immigration and its higher birthrates. economy remains central . Russia's population is shrinking by 720. "It was American strategy to see them get stronger. Nor. in part as more hedging.S. 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.Hegemony Page 64 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – General Declinists are wrong – US power is underestimated Omestad 08 Former Associate Editor of Foreign Policy. a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams. "The Bush administration has danced with the world in the worst way. is America without geopolitical options. Is America Really on the Decline? US News and World Report. Walter Russell Mead. More likely. ethnic tensions.S. Blunders. Nor are doubts about American competence a new factor. reasons Thérèse Delpech. the current credit crash follows in a long tradition of occasional panics and meltdowns in both the British Empire and the United States." If China were to sell off its trove of U. America's population is projected not only to grow but to avoid taking on the aging profiles of China. the warping of policy by partisan politics.S. so do they." says Mahbubani. Neither country will find that its path to restored greatness is clear and smooth.2 percent of the nation's GDP." reasons Mead.S. Russia. Nor. despite the opinion Michael." says Robert Kagan. strategists welcome a closer relationship with moderate Brazi l. Further." Rising to the occasion. in the end. policy aims to make China a "responsible stakeholder. policymaking. Winner of the Edwin M. also count America's demographics as a key source of vigor. American leadership persists. environmental constraints." Skeptics of U. says. "are probably as strong as they were in 2001. Magoo. is yet ready to replace the dollar. He likens the robustness of America's global standing to the muddling through of the comic bumbler Mr. a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. Take.S. Bush and a new set of more pro-American European leaders have been setting aside scraps over Iraq and other issues. 10/29) for all the deflating news. in general. The anti-declinists. and the perhaps inevitable return of political pressures for democratic change. U.S. The restorative capacity of America. John Bruton. defense expenditures today equal 4. it would undercut the value of its own assets.S. "The U." he says. and intemperate rhetoric all are recurring features of U. and East European countries are looking to Washington for reassurance against a more assertive Russia. It has forged a strategic tie to the South Asian giant of India that reflects democratic and multicultural affinities." 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. say the anti-declinists. "If the West goes into decline. The interdependence woven into the existing system creates mutual vulnerabilities that might deter efforts to weaken the United States directly. "We seem to find a way to manage them. for instance.S. leaders in Latin America. the near globalization of the U. and Western Europe. the disfavor visited on the United States because of its racial segregation and bigotry and a polarizing war in Vietnam.-initiated postwar system. the European Union ambassador in Washington. errors of judgment. "The fundamentals of America's power position in the world. But it is also a de facto hedge against the strengthening of still-authoritarian China. whose very openness should accommodate the peaceful rise of newer powers. the time-tested ability of American society to assess and overcome problems should interject caution about proclaiming the American century over and done with. Sam & Megan 64 . "When Wall Street coughs. "is constantly underestimated abroad and even sometimes at home. this time against anti-U. should the rise of others stir angst. "The Asians are not happy about America being so weakened. in part because of its one-child policy. It reflects. the United States remains the ultimate balancer to China." U. the rest of the world catches a cold. is no good at foreign policy. public debt." No other currency. "Those crises haven't sunk us in 300 years." asserts And yet. meanwhile. decline believe that other weaknesses are exaggerated and that the U. "We are still the glue that holds things together. The economic burdens of leadership are said to be manageable.S. U. In East Asia. Hood Award for Diplomatic Journalism (Thomas. by contrast.S. They both face underdevelopment in their vast countrysides.

" Even so. diplomat. it might be prudent to spread a few Michael. in the 21st century. Sam & Megan 65 . Few doubt that America's global position will experience "relative shifts." Says a senior America at your peril. But. "Bet against wagers on others as well. "there U.N." reckons Kagan.Hegemony Page 65 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW polls. is no other country's hand I'd rather play. he insists." to use the diplomatic language of State's Cohen.

And if there is no rising alternative then there is no declining superpower. which by the late '80s reached an annual $50 billion and surpassed America's. with all its problems.Hegemony Page 66 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – General Heg is sustainable – qualitative and quantitative advantages in all areas Jerusalem Post 08 (Amotz Asa-El. THE SUBSTANCE of superpowers. superpowers must also be financially super. America. the economic crisis has not given rise to an alternative power. scholars now agree. Brazil has even more millions teeming in favelas. And that is also why the military abilities of Russia and China must also be seen in the light of their economic weaknesses. Yet this doesn't at all mean America is on its way out. and the difference between them and America is that they will have even less of it. The Obama presidency will its foreign aid program. but Russia and China sure can throw their weight around. There is no sign for now of a Russian. Middle Israel: Barack Obama and the decline of America. and this is while America's delivery in its two current wars has not been decisive. As Kennedy concluded already before the USSR's downfall. And now it is the so-called BRIC powers . Russia abandons millions to the devices of organized crime. as Not quite. Now add to this America's social power. India still has pariahs who can only dream of American blacks' acceptance. none of America's rivals offers even a fraction of its originality. That rules out. Russia.Brazil. Culturally. with the '60s it was Sputnik's launch into outer space. Sam & Megan 66 . The world still rotates around an axis made of American inventions. and Europe keeps at arm's length vast immigrant populations. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. China distances its masses from civic leadership. Beyond this. Japanese or Chinese Alexander Graham Bell. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck argued last month in the Bundestag? Is the American superpower itself history? Has the US lost its financial superpower status. an achievement that shocked the West and made many suspect that the Soviets had become scientifically superior to America. They too will need money should they fight long and distant wars. Michael. In indeed be measured by the state of the gap between America's clout and these emerging powers' sway. First of all. Indian. and America's many eulogizers were never short of choices to anoint as Uncle Sam's successors. when Japan was the eulogizers' toast. 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. and rightly. A superpower must by definition possess the capacity to arrive quickly anywhere with troops that can impose their government's will. from China with its overproduction of cheap goods to Russia and its overreliance on extraction of raw materials. In fact. the motorcar and the computer to the motion picture. India and Japan. all of which now face drastically reduced demand. all the would-be successors have themselves been exposed as economically ill by the crisis. India and China that are turning America's eulogizers on with their new economic vitality. only a superpower in crisis. all were impressed. America has just tapped into deep social aquifers in a way that none of its rivals will do any time soon. Two decades ago. for now. the American superpower has advantages that transcend war and economics. from the airplane. is first of all military reach. That obviously calls into question America's current condition. everyone is in it together. the skyscraper and spaceship. Brazil. is socially healthier than all of them. Nov 13) Decline is by definition a relative term. Then there is the economy. Orville Wright.

as many have claimed. The incentive structure of elites. instead of constraining American power and preparing for inevitable decline.S. the victors will move quickly to fill the political vacuums left behind by the defeated great powers. It is ultimately an empirical question. The Problem of International Order Revisited International Security 26. can be expected to expand.. even foreign policy ones. especially the leading state. This predictive failure. power was in terminal decline. elected officials must answer to a domestic audience.g. leaders have few if any domestic incentives to abandon policies of autonomy and unilateralism in favor of multilateralism and self-restraint. not international.S.Hegemony Page 67 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Decline Inevitable 2AC Theoretical arguments about inevitable decline are bunk – they are just a selffulfilling prophecy – we should still act to preserve US power Schweller 01 Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University (Randall. their power. 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. or is anywhere in between. few if any foreign policy experts forecasted America's current supremacy in a unipolar world. is primarily a function of domestic. Thankfully. Indeed there is no a priori reason to conclude that instant postwar benefits (e. 28 Consequently. not bind. 26 Hegemonic postwar junctures are precisely when great powers. This is particularly true for leaders of democratic states. Second. the Cold War might have continued for decades longer. as Ikenberry himself acknowledges. self-fulfilling prophecy. and domination of the international economy. history records few decisionmakers who acted in such a farsighted manner. 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 predictable behavior because. they run the risk of achieving a foolish. 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. and it surely would noth ave ended in total victory for the West. 25 Great powers have tended to expand when they can. colonial possessions. prestige. relationship between the growth in power of a state and its desire to extend its territorial control. when presented with such an extraordinary opportunity to expand the state's territory and influence. politics. there has been a strong First. 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. The key question for postwar leaders is not whether but when decline will come and how much deterioration can be expected.S. etc. should may not be reaped decades later--long after they have left office? Finally. then. Hence it is impossible to tell whether the United States has currently reached its power zenith. for example. This is because the power trajectories of nations. been persuaded by the chorus of scholars in the 1970s to late 1980s proclaiming that U. are not structurally determined. Michael. is not proof of the impoverishment of international relations theories.run interests than simply taking advantage of its power position to grab immediate gains. Sam & Megan 67 . the deliberate we expect democratically elected policymakers of a newly hegemonic state to forgo immediate gains for long-run payoffs that may or 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. It is worth pointing out that even in the late 1980s. spheres of influence. political leaders "can be said to act under external compulsion rather than in accordance with their preferences": 27 That is. 270). Why. there are plenty of reasons why they would not and should not act on that belief. increases in the size of the new hegemon's territorial boundaries. "American power in the 1990s is without historical precedent" (p. political influence. their actions are driven by irresistible temptation. and unelected bureaucrats must serve and promote the autonomy and interests of the bureaucratic organization to which they belong. Had American policymakers.1) although hegemonic decline may be inevitable. it is not self-evident that a policy of strategic restraint better serves the hegemon's long. power capabilities in the 1980s. or is only halfway there. Ikenberry's claim rests on an unrealistic assumption about the time horizons of democratic leaders.) 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. First. because the primary goal for most elected officials is to ensure reelection. they are the result of wise or imprudent policy choices. the Reagan administration began ramping up U. however. 30 What can be said is that if current U. Second. Because nature and politics abhor a vacuum. especially powerful ones. [End Page 173] Because one can make an equally impressive logical case to support either position. policymakers [End Page 175] act on the belief that Pax Americana is an artificial moment. They have done so not necessarily to satisfy an innate lust for power. In practice. No matter how much internationalists may champion multilateral solutions. arresting America's relative decline through bold policy choices.

Sam & Megan 68 .Hegemony Page 68 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW More to the matters at hand. after fifty-six years of American leadership of the free world and still counting. policymakers to have acted on this assumption of inevitable decline in 1945. it would have been a terrible mistake for U. in accordance with Ikenberry's prescription Michael.S.

This approach inevitably leads to a selection bias against evidence of the indirect.Spring 2007) Perceptions of rapid polarity shifts of this sort are not unusual. or early 1990s. hegemonic rivalry for dominance. The result is an endless raising of the bar for what it takes to be a unipolar power. and no combination of other states would have the power to prevent it from doing so.” This is an extraordinary standard that essentially conflates unipolarity with universal empire. and decisions by Japan and others to nuclearize. security dilemmas among Asian powers. the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation). The trick is to determine when subtle quantitative shifts will lead to a major qualitative transformation of the basic structure of the international system. was written in part to dispel these flighty views and show that bipolarity still endured. 29 (1) . 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. If one looks past the headlines to the deep material structure of the world. and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan as a potential challenger). Yet in the early 1990s. A Tilted Balance. The better the United States becomes at acquiring resources. but it does not have bearing on the polarity of the international system. Cold War-scale arms races. scholars were already proclaiming the return of multipolarity as postwar recoveries in Europe and Japan took off. 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. Sam & Megan 69 . Clearly. Multipolarity—an international system marked by three or more roughly equally matched major powers—did not return in the 1960s. Defining power as the ability to solve whatever global problem is currently in the headlines virtually guarantees highly volatile prognostications about polarity. the Balkans in the nineteenth century. Err towards sustainability – declinists rise the bar too high and cherry-pick evidence – ev for decline is more visible and overstated Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. one will see that bipolarity is still the order of the day. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. Such perceived polarity shifts are usually accompanied by decline scares—concern that as other powers rise. Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. there are some simple rules of power analysis that can help prevent wild fluctuations in response to current events. arguments for multipolarity’s rapid return usually run afoul of them. Vol. In the early 1960s. in. and each decline scare ended with the United States’ position of primacy arguably strengthened.Hegemony Page 69 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Decline Inevitable 2AC Multipolarity is impossible to predict Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. the United States did not cease to be a superpower when it failed to overthrow Fidel Castro in the 1960s. Kenneth N. Waltz himself proclaimed that the return of multipolarity was around the corner. for example. they again announced the advent of multipolarity. The most influential scholarly book on international relations of the past generation. the greater the array of global problems it is expected to be able to resolve. 1970s. A Tilted Balance. In turn. analysts’ responses to those changes seem to have been overblown. But the selection bias goes much Michael. Fortunately. Barring geopolitical upheavals on the scale of Soviet collapse. the inter-state scales of power tend to change slowly. just as it feeds today’s multipolar mania. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. Many effects that can be attributed to the unipolar distribution of power are developments that never occur: counterbalancing coalitions. only a decade after analysts had developed the notion of bipolarity. “structural” effects of US power that are not dependent upon active management. This sort of headline chasing led to talk of “empire” in 2002 and 2003.Spring 2007) The larger problem with conflating power-as-resources with power-as-influence is that it leads to a constant shifting of the goalposts. Great European powers did not lose great power status when they failed to have their way. Samuel Huntington defined a unipolar state as one able “effectively to resolve all important international issues alone. Vol. and the greater the apparent gap between its material capabilities and the ends it can achieve. Assessing active attempts by the United States to employ its power capabilities may well be the most misleading way to think about power. After the fall of Saigon in 1975. real changes were occurring that suggested a redistribution of power. Waltz argued. In all of these cases. 29 (1) . Unfortunately. The fact that Washington cannot prevent Hugo Chavez from thumbing his nose at US power is interesting and perhaps even important. the United States will lose its competitive edge in foreign relations. But in each case. The current decline scare is the fourth since 1945—the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik).

a focus on highly contested issues. such as terrorism. but patterns of events that do go its way are often missed.Hegemony Page 70 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW further. Consider. such as the attempt at a second resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. 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. how often Washington’s failure to have its way in the United Nations is cited as compared to its experience in the IMF. And. Michael. even in the United Nations. for example. that are particularly important to the United States. Sam & Megan 70 .

but there is nothing in economics. this has already happened to some extent. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. A Tilted Balance. Instead. Sam & Megan 71 . or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to continue to grow rapidly for decades. But the US government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign policy commitments. notably on fossil fuels.Spring 2007) US military forces are stretched thin. counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. This is arguably the situation that the United States is in today. Even more radically. shifting resources from expensive weapons systems to boots on the ground. Michael. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support. it could reinstitute military conscription. 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. 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. but has untapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that the United States suffers from “imperial overstretch. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces. political science.” And if US power is overstretched now. unipolarity can hardly be sustainable for long. With latent power in the picture. and the country continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad—notably from the Chinese government. it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. shifting resources from pay and benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. This situation overstretch” to describe the situation in which a state’s 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. And as unnerving as terrorism is. the United States is not acting like a country under intense international pressure. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis.Hegemony Page 71 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – Latent Power US has large wellsprings of “latent power” it can tap Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. Although it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global “war” on terrorism. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the threat. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic measures. one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently. Vol. as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold War. it has moved strongly in the volunteer servicemen and women and their families. On the economic front. Indeed. opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. to put its fiscal house back in order. which is a function of the public’s perception of a there is nothing like the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing public support. it could raise taxes in a number of ways. Aside from the US citizens have not been asked to make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. the argument goes. Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined the term “imperial actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign policy commitments. China’s rise might push India and Japan closer to the United States— indeed. For example. 29 (1) . 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 selfinflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent power. its budget and trade deficits are high.

a fantastic situation has arisen: China’s rise is actually supporting US hegemony. But this view is inconsistent with the phenomenon of one-way globalization. and moreover. In this way. In contrast. One of the consequences of globalization China.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. The perception of globalization as a one-way process has generated a great deal of resistance. Today’s globalization is still in large part driven by the West. rather paradoxically.” NATO. as one in which “the American sells the house but the money to buy the house comes from China. Louis Vuitton stores crowd high-end shopping districts in Shanghai. which depend on exporting to US markets. Together. The United States’ arenas. Haier. which is encouraged by cultural diversity and political ambitions in addition to economic reasons. rather than destabilizing. regional free trade areas. Vol. is still relatively unknown. the United States. An Unlikely Pillar of US Hegemony. A. have accumulated large dollar reserves. which has found an outlet in the creation of regional free trade areas and blocs. Taking US hegemony and Western preeminence as the starting point. The World Social Forum’s slogan “Another World Is there than a first-round American Idol cut. Regionalization. So. Sam & Megan 72 . one must consider not only strength and intent. Thus. the foundations of US hegemony. The effect of this has been that after the Cold War a once-united world has parted to follow separate paths. If this trend of regionalization continues. and Wang Fei. will begin to have an increasingly less influential voice in world politics. The so-called process of one-way globalization can more truly be called Westernization. China holds over US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and US$350 billion in US bonds.” 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. the best-known Chinese brand in the United States.Hegemony Page 72 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – China 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. Bolivia has proposed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in opposition to the American Free Trade Zone. they must purchase dollars in order to keep the dollar strong and thus avoid massive losses. A Policy of Mutual Cooperation As I have previously noted. the Chinese and US economies account for half of global economic growth. the situation is comparable to has been that countries such as This has been unavoidable for these countries. as opposed to a system that emphasizes regional alternatives. We must step out of a narrowly national mindset and reconsider what Chinese development means for the United States. 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. and Bolivia. Thus. Because of this. Cuba. but global power structures and the macro-level implications of change in economic China presents a successful model for other developing countries to follow. not to fight but to Michael. is more efficient than globalization in coming to agreements and improving international competitiveness. Coca Cola has become a Chinese cultural icon. as gender equality progresses. eventually the United States will not only give up its illusions of global grandeur. The “concert of democracies. the United States is bound to bear a trade deficit. 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. Possible” has been taken up by some Latin American countries such as Venezuela. 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. China. if Chinese foreign policy in the short run seeks to prevent the rapid decline of the United States. rather than a system of autonomous regional blocs. for the United States to remain powerful on a global scale. inasmuch as it is tinged by Western unilateralism and entails the dissemination of essentially Western standards and ideology. 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. A Tilted Balance. who is widely regarded in China as the pop star who was able to make it in the United States. Thus. this deficit is inextricably tied to the dollar’s hegemony in today’s markets. a more traditional international system must be preserved. Thus. China is providing. otherwise it will be replaced by a system marked by a number of autonomous. regionalization is a prominent trend in the post-Cold War world. has less name-recognition This sort of globalization must change. China's Rise. Chinese women look to Western women for inspiration. while it will remain the preeminent North American power. ultimate strategy should be one of cooperation with China in order to ensure that they both become strong regional powers. global hegemony is becoming less and less feasible. or a transAtlantic free trade association (TAFTA) cannot fundamentally reverse this trend. Nascent free trade areas have already been established and have also promoted regional security integration goals. and. Low US inflation and interest rates similarly depend on the thousands of “Made in China” labels distributed across the United States. many have concluded that the rise of China presents a threat. the US trade deficit with China is US$200 billion. (Wang. 29 (1) . As Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times. supporting the traditional international order of a globally interconnected world and market. is assuaging disgruntled anti-globalizationalists and thus. when considering the risks and opportunities of Chinese development. For example.” Today.

the greatest threat to the continuation of the stable world order of the present is not a rising China.Hegemony Page 73 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 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. Michael. Thus. 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. but the failure of China to develop further. Sam & Megan 73 . US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson described the situation well: “the biggest risk we face is not that China will overtake the United States.” And China intends to use reform and liberalization to realize its peaceful rise. 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. Regionalization cannot be sustainable in the long run. and harmonious international order and to avoid isolation. reasonable.

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. 3/11) the US will remain a global colossus. In any case. Michael. 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. Sam & Megan 74 . hope will not be enough. as in the domestic arena. whoever the president. 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. 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. as in the Clinton years potentially gives the US extra room for manoeuvre. if expectations of change are dashed. like Roosevelt. despite Obama's pledge to expand the armed But. The Canberra Times 08 (SEUMAS MILNE. 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. Those who want real change will have to fight for it.Hegemony Page 74 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – Obama Obama gives us breathing room to improve leadership Of course. forces. with a military presence in 130 of the world's 195 countries. Economic failure may yet force military cutbacks. the reaction may end up being all the sharper. if Obama is to begin to fulfill the confidence invested in him. be propelled by events to adopt more radical positions.

the already huge U. 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. Yet to an extent. much less a strategy for regional security and defense. hegemony is done for. which add more to the bill. the Strait of Malacca. U.S. but that didn't stop it from continuing to build up the world's most formidable military. In a world of intensifying competition for natural resources. Navy's 11 carriers to be permanently stationed ("homeported") in a foreign country. Both McCain and Obama have talked about the greater need for cooperation with U. is going to go on paying for the Seventh Fleet. finito.5 billion a pop. the world would still be a much more dangerous place without America around. it's the only one of the U. Surely the sheer lack of cash will end up restraining Washington's ambitions to remake the world. though. South Korea.) Many people may not have noticed. And I readily concede that America's intense belief in the rightness of its own system sometimes tempts it into destabilizing adventures. No one can take our place despite all our problems Caryl 08 Newsweek Web Exclusive( Christian. Japan. the American Empire is over. Yet I don't see anyone around who's ready to take its place. Let's go back to the USS George Washington.") Americans may not want to play that role. along with the United States and the European Union. whose area of responsibility extends from the western Pacific to the Indian Ocean. It's also one of many reasons why the 21st century usually turns out to be more complicated than talk of 19th-century Today's great powers are economically linked in all sorts of ways that make big wars a lot less likely. which helps them to build confidence in each other. China would suddenly get very nervous about protecting what strategists call its "sealine of communications.S. Yet. According to everyone from Hamas to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. China. the Seventh Fleet were to evaporate tomorrow. Russia? Give me a break. hegemon—call it what you will—for a long while to come. the Department of Defense budget was about $440 billion— and that didn't include additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. the Balkan Wars of the 1990s happened in the European Union's backyard. is that none of its countries trust each other. Oct 31) Conventional wisdom has it that the George Washington is soon to become an empty symbol.S. influence will undoubtedly wane as more and more countries build confidence in each other. Treasury debt. on balance.S. budget deficit can only get bigger. For the reasons I've described above. accounted for 47 percent of the world's defense spending in 2003. voters are already less inclined to pay for overseas adventures.S. the world will probably need someone to play the role of arbiter. enforcer. America is overstretched. Like it or not. Just to make it more interesting. U. but for the past few years the United States has paid for its policies by borrowing money from other countries—primarily Japan. is a Greek word that means "leadership. Imperialism. and Taiwan—all dependent on the same oil—would immediately have to confront similar concerns. and other East Asian economic giants who have America buy their stuff by loading themselves down with U. Both have talked about overarching challenges that unite the international community. So does that mean that the military factor is irrelevant in today's globalized world? Not at all. The problem with East Asia. though. but they ended only when the United States—belatedly and reluctantly—applied its military leverage. The same principle applies around the world. But I have a feeling that someone. somehow. 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. Since it arrived in statecraft and balance of power politics would allow.Hegemony Page 75 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis Financial collapse won’t constrain military spending – US military is not obsolete. Were China to beef up its military presence there. But that's going to take a long time. has good historical reasons to worry about the motives of Japan.S. allies and placed far less No question about it. the U.S. while South Korea is intensely the Seventh Fleet is a powerful insurance policy that ensures more or less stable rules of the game. and without additional revenue. and keeping them afloat isn't much cheaper. entirely true that. China. emphasis on Bush-style unilateralism. As economic turbulence hits home. The George Washington is the biggest ship of the 50-some-odd vessels that make America's Seventh Fleet. and the rest of the world doesn't always like the United States when it does. 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.S. Whoever the next president is. It's paranoid about both Japan and China. America's pseudo-imperial role is being diluted as more and more countries embrace their own forms of market-oriented democracy. Sam & Megan . The reason is simple enough: the financial and economic crisis is already tipping the United States into recession. they don't have much choice. Why is that? Just take a look at the map. (According to one estimate. as my colleague Fareed Zakaria has argued. And because China hardly offers a model of transparent government. they would find themselves having to do a lot of guessing. China? Many of its neighbors are unlikely to be enthusiastic. In 2007." Four-fifths of China's entire supply of oil comes through the Strait of Malacca.S. Long Live U. 75 Michael. for example. he'll find it hard to push-through dramatic tax increases. for its part. The era of U. up Japan this September. ("Hegemony. That's a good thing and undoubtedly serves the cause of general stability. That includes. Aircraft carriers like the George Washington cost $4. And there's certainly a lot of work to be done in all these respects. let us say. Just to cite one example. If. The European Union? It can't even forge a common foreign policy." by the way. There's just one problem with this thesis: The United States was short on cash long before this latest crisis hit. it still provides stability. Unpredictability is a very dangerous thing when the vital national interests of states are involved.

Sam & Megan 76 .Hegemony Page 76 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Michael.

Japan's basic approach should be to make clear both internally and Having said that. Michael.. This is not tantamount to blindly obeying the U. its sensible leadership is still the best hope for the world to create a liberal and open world order. while trying to enhance its own ability to act independently. unless the world is divided into several spheres of influence. Thus. a shaky While it is easy to criticize the United States.S. which will play special roles in managing the globalized economy after the current financial crisis and economic slump that will inevitably follow it. Sam & Megan 77 . World order led by either Russia or China. Nov 5) it is very difficult for me to imagine any alternative to the leadership of the U. which relies on it for national security and the international economic order it provides. Financial crisis marks end of US as hyper power. 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. A United States that behaves in an excessive manner is a threat to Japan. However. even if possible. Viewing world order from a more comprehensive standpoint.S. U. to the world and above all to the U. externally that it will support moderate and sensible leadership by the U.S.S. At this time of crisis. It is impossible for not only Japan but also China to sever their relations with the U. which may be prepared to listen to the friendly counsel of its ally. would also be a threat to Japan. will not be attractive.S. itself. Mainchini. economy without triggering major economic dislocation.Hegemony Page 77 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis 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. 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.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The most striking change has occurred in India. In the meantime. Iraq has shifted from implacable anti-Americanism under Saddam Hussein to dependence on the United States. Despite the opinion polls. If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Close but not uncritical relations with the United States. Germany. National Post July 25. that will transform the strategic equation in the region." runs hottest. Russians continue to fear that the massive and productive Chinese population will quietly overrun Russia's sparsely populated Siberian and far eastern territory. and backed by the American superpower.the democratic powers of Europe.S. Georgia. Along with Israel. so long as the American public continues to support American Michael. Qatar and of course. where anti-Americanism Jordan. Sam & Megan 78 . the Japanese-American alliance was in danger of eroding. A few years ago.Hegemony Page 78 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing 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. and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy. Japan. "If you asked me which of the [two] countries France will have closer relations with-the United States or Russia. built or expanded bases in Afghanistan. This is not out of renewed affection for the United States. Iraq. This lack of fundamental realignment in the Middle East contrasts sharply with the major strategic setbacks the United States suffered during the Cold War. Why we need the 800-pound gorilla. do the nations of the Persian Gulf organized in the Gulf Cooperation Council. 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. period. 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. German and European interests. But there are obstacles to a lasting strategic alliance between the two powers. Saudi Arabia and Morocco continue to work closely with the United States. So. partly because of Japan's escalating concerns about China and North Korea. including a quasialliance between Moscow and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser. the strategic balance has not shifted very much. Japanese leaders came to a similar conclusion a decade ago. 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. too. This favourable strategic balance could shift suddenly and dramatically. An alliance of Sunni states worries about the expanding Iranian and Shiite influence in the Middle East. In 1979. Hungary. they believe. America's relations with both old and new allies have actually strengthened in recent years. Kyrgyzstan. as well as Syria. But since 1997. Meanwhile. They have strengthened the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an increasingly military as well as political institution. American predominance is unlikely to fade anytime soon. China and Russia have been working together to balance against the United States. Since September 11. and India--are drawing closer to the United States geopolitically. the predominant military power. in Bulgaria. a former ally of Moscow that today sees good relations with the United States as essential to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals. 2008) As it happens. 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. They have entered into an arms alliance. and the rest of Europe have been moving in the other direction." French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said. and partly as a means of enhancing Japan's own position in East Asia and the world. despite somewhat greater pressure emanating from Washington for political reform of these autocracies. this anti-Iranian coalition seems stronger than any antiAmerican coalition Iran has been able to assemble. if not a formal strategic alliance. like Russia and China. " 'the U. In the 1950s and 1960s. the strategic relationship between the two countries has grown stronger. is more dependent on the American market than is the oil-exporting Russia. give a boost to European power and influence that Europe cannot achieve on its own. In Europe there is also an unmistakable trend toward closer strategic relations with the United States. the number of overseas American military bases continues to grow in the Middle East and elsewhere. largely because much of the world does not really want it to.' would be my answer … The friendship between Europe and the United States is a cornerstone of world stability. the United States has Nothing similar has yet occurred as a result of the Iraq War. Even in the Middle East. Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac flirted with drawing closer to Russia as a way of counterbalancing American power. as well as in the Philippines. Another problem for China and Russia is that the world's other great powers -. That led to a fundamental shift in the strategic balance in the region from which the United States is still suffering. Poland and Romania in Europe. the panArab nationalist movement swept across the region and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement. In the mid-1990s. 2001. Djibouti. But now France. China's manufacturing economy. who are worried about Iran. and they are probably right. It is a response to changing international circumstances and to lessons learned from the past. meanwhile. Pakistan. Oman. Yet they also remain traditional rivals. Libya has moved from being squarely in the anti-American camp to a more ambiguous posture. however. Iran itself faces some regional balancing. Egypt. Chinese strategists believe the present international configuration is likely to endure for some time.

Sam & Megan 79 . the structure of the international system should remain as it has been. as it has consistently for six decades. with one superpower and several great powers. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbours. Michael.Hegemony Page 79 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW predominance.

its per-capita GDP would still be only one-quarter that of the United States. the price of labor is examined even more closely. Iraq aside. National power is a complex phenomenon. India. If we carefully examine the numbers. Sam & Megan 80 .” Projections must take into account the fact that growth will cause prices to converge with international norms. Although the prices of many manufactured products tend to be equalized by international trade.Hegemony Page 80 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – China 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. No one knows how much to discount the PPP numbers for the purposes of making comparisons of national power. and historians continues to demonstrate that decisionmakers and analysts tend to break this basic rule. what is most responsible for the virtual shift to multipolarity is not a word but an acronym: PPP. “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. China’s global clout will certainly rise with the relative size of its economy. But forecasts about China’s rise should not be based on predictions of its living standards. but wealth and technological development. Current projections of China’s economic rise may well be overstated. When a huge number of poor people are gathered together in one country. A Tilted Balance. Vol. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. this method provides better estimates of comparative living standards. they can create a large economy that is much less capable of generating power than the raw numbers would suggest. What is certain. Yet research by political scientists. We all know that relying on one simple indicator of power is not a good idea. is that one should not “use projections of national accounting growth rates from a PPP base. But economic size is only one indicator of power. PPP stands for the “purchasing power parity” estimate of countries’ exchange rates—the size of their economies in dollar terms. After all. Even setting aside the manifold challenges that this country faces on the road to superpowerdom—including a looming demographic crisis. And if we will likely see that one indicator alone is being used to project China’s rise: the growth of its gross domestic product (GDP). India is estimated to have had a much larger economy than the British Isles when it was colonized in the nineteenth century. 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. Michael. Indeed. Projections of China’s rise are a case in point. 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. 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. and it can be a misleading one. Studies of national power in the post-industrial age find that what matters most today is not just economic size. Russia. and therefore labor-intensive products and services tend to be relatively cheap in poor counties. properly applied. even if China’s overall GDP did come to equal that of the United States.Spring 2007) When analysts forecast the coming of multipolarity. they often talk of how the rising BRIC countries (Brazil. Keidel estimates that it will take until 2050 for China’s total economic size to equal the United States. a shaky financial system. As University of Pennsylvania professor Avery Goldstein notes. economist Albert Keidel notes. psychologists. 29 (1) . and China) will alter the global balance of power. 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.” Economists universally agree that. and thus the PPP to converge with the market exchange rate. not. PPP clearly exaggerates this sort of power. what drives most of these projections is China.

China's economic interests. Part of this jockeying for strategic influence is the very practical issue of access to the region's rich energy and other natural resources. The geopolitics here are different: though it is not clear exactly where. Future tension in Central Asia may not be limited to the part that borders Europe. Shortly after the Georgian incident. If one of the purposes of the SCO for Beijing is to enhance its strategic influence in central Asia. Michael. China's opposition to Russia's action in Georgia should therefore be seen against this backdrop. then this implicitly at least encroaches on an area that Moscow has traditionally seen as within its sphere of influence. its soft power diplomacy. 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. Russian President Medvedev said that Russia should have a privileged sphere of influence in Asia. the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. but could apply in a similar way to its eastern periphery. and it tolerated the US's post-9/11 presence in central Asia. Sam & Megan 81 . there is no evidence that Moscow is currently concerned by a military threat from China (or Japan for that matter) in the east. and Russia has sponsored an alternative central Asian organisation which does not include China.Hegemony Page 81 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – 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. Researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (“Are China-Russia 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. any signs of a change in Russian policy towards its periphery do not only have the potential to affect states on its European borders. So Nato does not impinge on Russia's eastern borders. nor what the Chinese response to that statement has been.

Its conventional forces have improved over their the 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. The image of a new Russian colossus threatening neighbors. Russia’s longterm prospects remain bleak. concluding: “Improvements in command. Michael. So. despite the nationalistic adrenaline rush following Moscow’s triumph. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union. adjoining far more populous China. their population is declining. demographic and health trends can change. change their savings into dollars and euros.” A declining population will have serious geopolitical consequences as well. what Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute calls a “great leap backwards. with one-time billionaire oligarchs scurrying to the Kremlin begging for relief. The stock market is down 70 percent from May. Investment rating services are threatening to downgrade Russian debt. Economic growth has been the foundation of Vladimir Putin’s popularity. Those are challenging goals under any circumstances.” Moscow’s nuclear force. including a substantial number of tactical warheads. He will be loath to risk popular displeasure by allowing the economy to continue sinking. for instance—should its demands not be met. Moscow’s ambitions always were much more limited—ensuring border security and international respect. declining revenues will crimp the Kremlin’s plans to sharply enhance its military .” Russia’s population was 145 million in 2002. For instance. Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services recently pointed to weaknesses exposed by the August war . Sam & Megan 82 . but more funds will have to be plowed into business investment and social programs. is its principal power tool. but could ill afford to use nuclear weapons as a substitute for inadequate conventional forces against any of the countries lining its border. which envisioned Russia as sporting one of the globe’s five largest economies and acting as an international financial center and technological leader.Hegemony Page 82 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – Russia Russia can’t balance – military sucks. 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. But we need not wait until 2020 for evidence of Russian weakness. but fell to 142 million this year. Western Europe and the United States never reflected reality. The United Nations figures that Russia’s population is going to drop another 10 million by 2020. “this is not the portrait of a successfully and rapidly developing economy—much less an emerging economic superpower . Russia nadir following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Not only will there be less money available overall. Any turnaround likely will take years. and others balance Bandow 08 Robert A. 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 offensive power was limited. but almost certainly will be impossible to achieve without abundant Western investment. which will force the Kremlin to moderate its foreign policy. However. Last year. trade and cooperation. but a sharp rise in mortality rates and drop in life expectancy . too. As Eberstadt puts it. were its abilities limited. but Moscow’s problems are systematic and fundamental. 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 . not reestablishing the Soviet empire. Indeed. Obviously. Moreover. the relative depopulation of Siberia. Russia has suffered not just a birth dearth. training levels and the employment of flexible. so recently celebrating their new prosperity. Russia’s present financial difficulties are likely to force Moscow to accelerate economic integration with the West. As its economy weakens. Moreover. then–President Putin issued an updated economic development strategy for 2020. modern weapons systems are required before the Russian military can face any opponents larger or better equipped than the Georgian military. Economic uncertainty and falling energy prices have combined to deflate Russia’s pretensions of being a great power again. Rather. 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. even before the ongoing economic crunch. could leave Russia’s expansive eastern territory at risk. The ruble has lost two year’s worth of appreciation as anxious citizens.

its closing price Monday in New York. the leaders of Venezuela. Iran extended its influence across the Middle East. It began rebuilding its military. intimidation. wrested control of oil and gas pipelines and pushed back against Western encroachment in the former Soviet empire. than when it is at $147. For all three nations.25 a barrel. Iran and Russia muscled their way onto the world stage. Michael. oil money was a means to an ideological end. Now. its price as recently as three months ago. using checkbook diplomacy and. recaptured some of its former standing in the world. Sam & Megan 83 . Russia. Russia Oil prices are dominating oil exporters NYT 08 (“3 Oil-Rich Countries Face a Reckoning” 10-21) As the price of oil roared to ever higher levels in recent years. Iran. which suffered a humiliating economic collapse in the 1990s after the fall of communism. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of like-minded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding oncedominant American influence.Hegemony Page 83 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Counterbalancing – Venezuela. on occasion. plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States hegemony. But such ambitions are harder to finance when oil is at $74. 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.

Once an insurgency takes root. When they do—as in the case of Britain in South Africa at the turn of the last century and more recently. but not surprising. A Tilted Balance.Hegemony Page 84 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Sustainable – AT: Iraq Iraq doesn’t show decline – any other country would fail. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. not one between several different states. And simply because hightechnology weaponry has not altered the centuries-old power balance between governments and armed insurgents. then it applies to all the great powers. Vol. or the European Union would perform any better if faced with the challenges that the US military confronts in Iraq. Insurgency has always been difficult to thwart.Spring 2007) Iraq exhibits a balance of power dynamic between states and non-state insurgents. this argument is not correct. Sam & Megan 84 . Also Vietnam proves Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. They contend that counterinsurgency campaigns have become much more difficult to execute than what used to be the case. Some scholars argue that Iraq demonstrates new information about the state versus nonstate balance. it does not necessarily follow that unipolarity is about to end. With a comparatively small force in a large and populous country. the United States’ inability to foster stability in Iraq is tragic. But if this is so. 29 (1) . not just the United States. India. There is no reason to believe that China. Russia in But the example of Chechnya—it is usually the result of deploying very large military forces willing to use ferocious violence on a mass scale against innocent civilians. 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. governments rarely prevail. Michael. Russia.

Throughout history. 22-24) we show that the theory does not predict and historical experience does not imply there will be efforts to counterbalance the United States today. economically India lags behind China. The other great powers have not attempted to constrain No counterhegemonic coalition has taken shape. capabilities could become even more formidably costly. and poor conditions in transatlantic relations. 08 – Professor at Harvard and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government (Joseph “Recovering American Leadership..S. and the biggest increases in defense spending have been on behalf of the Pentagon. No counter balancing – countries find it too costly Brooks and Wohlforth. “World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy” Princeton University Press. The principal change in alliances since the demise of the Soviet Union had been the expansion of NATO. energy. Notwithstanding increased expenditures by a few great powers (notably China). a willingness of European populations to spend heavily on defence. and the effect of increasing power is reversed: the stronger the leading state and the more entrenched its dominance. and the search for new state actors that might challenge the Some see China as the new enemy. while the United States achieves only 2–3%. and it faces serious health and demographic problems. March 2008) A number of realists have expressed concern about America’s staying power as well. if the United States decided to increase its defense expenditures (currently around 4 percent In this chapter. In contrast. but despite recent impressive growth. but its recent resurgence is based on a single commodity. 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. power..” Survival. While realists raise an important point about the economic rise of new powers in the international arena.5 percent of GDP). 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. Sam & Megan 85 . 08 – Associate professor of government at Dartmouth. General patterns of evidence since the advent of unipolarity are consistent with our argument and inexplicable in traditional balanceof-power terms. in aggregate the United States by allying together: Michael. Balance-of-power theory predicts that states try to prevent the rise of a hegemon.S. an attempt to counterbalance would be far more expensive than a similar effort in any previous international system. 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. it has passed a threshold. power today: Even if a potential hegemon must be concerned about counterbalancing . coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers. Nor have they balanced increases in U. Matching U. of GDP) to Cold War levels (which averaged 7.Hegemony Page 85 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Counterbalancing – Too Costly Countries won’t balance – no economic capabilities Nye. Russia is sometimes cited as a great power. But even if China maintains its high growth rate of 9%. Germany’s industrial production had surpassed the United Kingdom’s well before open conflict between the two erupted in 1914. William C. others envisage a Russia–China–India coalition. but this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity. United States and shift the balance of power is well underway. Others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United States for primacy. military power through internal spending. Professor of government at Dartmouth (Stephen G. 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. they fail to register a point important for constraints on U. While scholars debate the historical evidence for this proposition.S.S. moreover. Others see India becoming a major challenger to the United States. and will have incentives to cooperate with the United States to balance rising Chinese power. Because no country comes close to matching the comprehensice nature of U. and none is on the horizon.

Hegemony Page 86 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW their commitments to defense have declined compared to the United States: the U. share of total defense spending by the major powers grew from 47 percent in 1991 to 66 percent in 2006. power. No major power has exhibited any propensity to use military capabilities directly to contain U. Michael. Were the theory not already popular with scholars and pundits. This is not the pattern of evidence balance-of-power theory predicts.S. Sam & Megan 86 . nothing about the behavior of the major powers since 1991 would have called it to mind.S.

(Richard. Sam & Megan 87 . foreign policy are pervasive. it surely has. acted in a manner that has led other states to conclude that the United States constitutes a threat to their vital national interests. Doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of U. Bush has not alienated other nations.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-ofnonpolarity. 08 – CFR pres.html) 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. http://www. But it has not. Michael.Hegemony Page 87 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Counterbalancing – Benevolent Heg No counterbalancing – benevolent hegemony Haas. May/June. but this has tended to lead more to denunciations (and an absence of cooperation) than outright resistance.foreignaffairs. for the most part. which has not stimulated such a response.S. This is not to say that the United States under the leadership of George W.

(Richard. countries such as But this has not happened. nor is it able or inclined to act in the assertive fashion of historic great powers. this is because the disparity between the power of the United States and that of any potential rivals is too great. The EU's GDP is now greater than that of the United States. no great-power rival or set of rivals has emerged to challenge the United States. China may come to possess GDPs comparable to that of the United States. Sam & Megan 88 . May/June. http://www. Russia may be more inclined.foreignaffairs. 08 – CFR pres. 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 Maintaining political stability during a period of such dynamic but uneven growth will be no easy feat. has a shrinking and aging population and lacks the political culture to play the role of a great power. but it still has a largely cash-crop economy and is saddled by a declining population and internal challenges to its cohesion. Michael.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-ofnonpolarity. to fund military development or external undertakings. In part. for its part. Over time.Hegemony Page 88 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Counterbalancing – Too Far Ahead No balancing – The US is already too far ahead Haas.html) Although anti-Americanism is widespread. Japan. But in the case of China. India faces many of the same demographic challenges and is further hampered by too much bureaucracy and too little infrastructure. but the EU does not act in the unified fashion of a nation-state.

in Vietnam or in Iraq -. But a superpower can lose a war -. 07 – a fellow at the German Marshall Fund and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert.html) foreign policy failures do not necessarily undermine predominance. Sam & Megan 89 . Michael. so long as the American public continues to support American predominance as it has consistently for six decades. Real Clear Politics http://www.Hegemony Page 89 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Iraq Kills Heg Iraq doesn’t tank US predominance Kagan. By the same token. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and the predominant military power.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) End of Dreams. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors. Some have suggested that failure in Iraq would mean the end of predominance and unipolarity. 7/19/07. Return of History. the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: one superpower and many great powers.without ceasing to be a superpower if the fundamental international conditions continue to support its predominance.realclearpolitics.

Assessing active attempts by the United States to employ its power capabilities may well be the most misleading way to think about power. “structural” effects of US power that are not dependent upon active management. the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation). The better the United States becomes at acquiring resources. The result is an endless raising of the bar for what it takes to be a unipolar power. the Balkans in the nineteenth century. Spring 07 http://www. Such perceived polarity shifts are usually accompanied by decline scares— concern that as other powers rise. 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. pundits considered the term “unipolar” to be too modest. But in each case. This sort of headline chasing led to talk of “empire” in 2002 and 2003. 07 – Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale (William. and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan as a potential challenger). This approach inevitably leads to a selection bias against evidence of the indirect.harvardir. and decisions by Japan and others to nuclearize. and no combination of other states would have the power to prevent it from doing so. The fact that not have bearing on the polarity of the international system. Multipolarity is impossible to predict – the US will remain the unipolar power Wohlforth. Waltz himself proclaimed that the return of multipolarity was around the corner. Clearly.harvardir. Indeed. If one looks past the headlines to the deep material structure of the world. hegemonic rivalry for dominance. only “empire” could capture the extraordinary position of power that the United States appeared to occupy. the United States has fallen from global empire to hapless Gulliver The the end of unipolarity. it is hardly a leap to suggest that multipolarity is nigh. just as it feeds today’s multipolar mania. After the fall of Saigon in 1975. and the greater the apparent gap between its material capabilities and the ends it can achieve. In turn. but it does Defining power as the ability to solve whatever global problem is currently in the headlines virtually guarantees highly volatile prognostications about polarity. Many effects that can be attributed to the unipolar distribution of power are developments that never occur: counter-balancing coalitions.Hegemony Page 90 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW AT: Multipolarity Inevitable Predictions of hegemonic decline and multipolarity are flawed Wohlforth. only a decade after analysts had developed the notion of bipolarity. security dilemmas among Asian powers. the United States will lose its competitive edge in foreign relations. in the eyes of the foreign policy commentariat. 07 – Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale (William.org/articles/1611/1/) potential for the rise of a multipolar world order certainly seems far more plausible now than it did several years ago. Great European powers did not lose great power status when they failed to have their way. the United States did not cease to be a superpower when it failed to overthrow Fidel Castro in the 1960s. in a mere four years.” This is an extraordinary standard that essentially conflates unipolarity with universal empire. The most influential scholarly book on international relations of the past generation.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. Spring 07 http://www. Waltz argued. the greater the array of global problems it is expected to be able to resolve. “Unipolar Stability” Harvard International Review. In the early 1960s. 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. Cold War-scale arms races. for example. Sam & Megan 90 . analysts’ responses to those changes seem to have Michael. real changes were occurring that suggested a redistribution of power. In all of these cases. Yet in the early 1990s. was written in part to dispel these flighty views and show that bipolarity still endured. Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. one will see that bipolarity is still the order of the day. Washington cannot prevent Hugo Chavez from thumbing his nose at US power is interesting and perhaps even important. “Unipolar Stability” Harvard International Review. The current decline scare is the fourth since 1945—the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik). 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. they again announced the advent of multipolarity. In 2003. Kenneth N. in.

or early 1990s. Sam & Megan 91 . there are some simple rules of power analysis that can help prevent wild fluctuations in response to current events. 1970s. Fortunately. Unfortunately. Barring geopolitical upheavals on the scale of Soviet collapse. arguments for multipolarity’s rapid return usually run afoul of them. Michael.Hegemony Page 91 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW been overblown. The trick is to determine when subtle quantitative shifts will lead to a major qualitative transformation of the basic structure of the international system. 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 inter-state scales of power tend to change slowly. Multipolarity—an international system marked by three or more roughly equally matched major powers—did not return in the 1960s. and each decline scare ended with the United States’ position of primacy arguably strengthened.

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. as well as the Army leadership. However. 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. If stability in a participation. Only the Army not the Air Force. is perfectly suited to the capabilities of the U. In fact. and on winning wars if deterrence fails. the more likely it is to have to employ them. and will almost certainly involve increasing its size. forces are so ready to fight them that they are so unlikely. Crane 02 Research Fellow @ Strategic Studies Institute and Former Prof of History @ US Military Academy Conrad C. or Marines can really do it in an environment of questionable security. May Future Army missions like those in Bosnia and Kosovo should not be accepted lightly. and secure peace Effective and efficient peace-building efforts must remain an important element of any national security strategy. Navy. adequate funding must be found to modernize the legacy forces which And the paradox of deterrence is that the weaker a nation’s armed forces are perceived to be. Major Combat Operations. Army and its engineers. including landpower. especially in such a precarious security environment. Rumsfeld admitted that the existence of low-density. the larger Army that fought and won Operation DESERT STORM is already long gone. One project they have proposed is the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s ring road. and these units must not be allowed to atrophy. remain reluctant to accept such a mission.29 There is no reason still to have such force shortfalls. Though the Bush administration. FACING THE HYDRA: MAINTAINING STRATEGIC BALANCE WHILE PURSUING A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM.S. the Center for Army Analysis predicted the United States would face a future of 25 to 30 ongoing SSCs each month. The primary focus of the QDR Report is on dissuading and deterring potential adversaries from threatening the interests of America and its allies. sustain coalitions.27 To prevent peacekeeping assignments from dragging on and tying up scarce assets. However. but they are certainly not impossible and clearly require forces ready to fight them. burden in these operations can be lessened by relying as much as possible on allied there is no substitute for the presence of ground forces from the most powerful nation in the world to reassure friends. In the long-run. 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.28 Though it discusses SSCs only briefly. which is so vital to the restoration of trade. this new force-sizing construct has the potential to bring calls for a reduction of heavy land combat forces. and we didn’t buy enough of what we need.31 Critics may accept the need to keep such forces for the decisive defeat. Sam & Megan 92 . but only one of those campaigns will involve a decisive defeat including the occupation of territory or a possible regime change. and deter potential adversaries. taking will have to fight near and mid-term wars. Cross border incursions remain a threat in Asia and the Middle East. they will still be essential if operations expand to take on most powerful military force on the planet remains a joint force based around a heavy corps. This effort should be accompanied by the development of appropriate doctrine for such peace-building missions. He advocated adding them as part of his transformation efforts. then it cannot be allowed to return to chaos because of the distractions of the war on terrorism. Crane. there will be times even in the midst of the war against terrorism when national interests will require humanitarian assistance. The terrorism.32 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 Michael. The Army must also retain its ability to deter and fight other wars besides the global war on terrorism. Achieving this goal will require modifying the AC Army force structure. Influential members of Congress have already called for American peacekeepers there. but will argue for Army force structure cuts in the allocation for the second conflict. again that post-conflict societies can become breeding grounds for crime and terrorism if some sort of order is not imposed. Cross-border wars of aggression are not the most likely type of conflict predicted for the future. In a recent speech. and deter potential adversaries. where major ground forces have initially had only limited utility.S.Hegemony Page 92 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Fails Ground presence is key to reassure our allies. high-demand assets that have been so overworked by SSCs signified that our priorities were wrong. to back it up. 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. region such as the Balkans is determined to be a vital American interest. SSI. Additionally. Though the U. Even in the war on other states that support terrorism and are more robust than Afghanistan. long-term solutions to create a more stable world will require the United States to perform it. and major newspapers irrespective of their political inclinations are advocating a significant U. The current situation in Afghanistan highlights operations that only American military forces can provide. role in nation-building. Months before September 11.30 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. sustain global coalitions. it is precisely because U. and they must be addressed. The document’s new force-sizing paradigm still envisions swiftly defeating attacks in two theaters of operation in overlapping timeframes.S. nation-building. 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. This task.S. the Army and supporting agencies must become better at nation-building.

Large conventional militaries in Iran and North Korea support regimes seeking to develop nuclear arsenals. and the destruction of the United States. The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are unusual in some ways. now made even worse with Pyongyang's recent claim to have conducted an underground nuclear test. because these regimes recognize no restraints on their behavior other than those imposed by superior power. America's conventional military strength remains critical. the first requirement of success is the establishment of security throughout the country or region. The United States is at war. but share common features with many other past insurgencies. traditional power politics continue to control the world. But nothing will be possible without adequate military force. The United States has been apathetic and helpless in the face of this growing threat. and the United States responds with fear and appeasement. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is seizing the moment with traditional diplomatic delaying tactics while his scientists race to give him the weapons he desires. and the enemy is the same one we have been fighting for sixty years. In traditional realpolitik terms. combined with internal collapses in both countries resulting in part from our flawed strategies. A totalitarian regime controls North Korea. Nor is there any likelihood that a "small footprint" (almost a "no footprint") approach in the Horn of Africa will contain the Islamist threat there. We should have an enormous advantage. Our enemies did not. that our conventional forces are overstretched. The seizure of territory in Somalia by groups ideologically tied to our primary foe is reminiscent of Communist insurgencies in the Third World. Both are pursuing nuclear weapons in the most conventional way possible--not as terrorist-style suitcase bombs. which the United States is currently lacking. and the result has been utter failure. North international norms and agreements repeatedly in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Instead. and reconciliation tracks are not sustainable without security. Victory will require a mobilization of America's military might and the willingness to use it. economic.S. and seek power throughout the Middle East. A similar approach in Iran will not be more successful. It is time to wake up from the dream world of the 1990s. Success in Iraq--and 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. If history ended with the end of the Cold War. Somalia is falling into the hands of militant Islamists. These threats can be deterred or defeated for certain only through the use or convincing threat of using conventional forces.Hegemony Page 93 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Offshore Balancing Fails Troops are key to deter rogue state aggression that will cause conflict and collapse hegemony Kagan 06 Military historian @ West Point. attack is therefore very small. the elimination of liberalism and religious toleration. In counterinsurgencies. 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. Totalitarian ideologues hold power in Iran. This task is manpower-intensive Afghanistan--requires a heavier deployment of U. but also to bring peace to those troubled lands. Saddam Hussein fought a conventional war in 2003. then our military power will become irrelevant. Winning throughout the Muslim world will require economic. But the Bush administration does not think in terms of traditional power politics. North Korea already has nuclear weapons and will soon be able to deploy them against the continental United States. and that the danger of a U. have just seized power in southern Somalia. Political.S. Adaptive and unpredictable enemies like al Qaeda will require us to change part of our approach and some of our forces constantly. which it has been modernizing as rapidly as possible. our strategies will fail. Sam & Megan . Past as Future The result of all of this new-think is impending disaster on many fronts. We have been trying the diplomatic approach. in fact. and the lessons of thousands of years of human history still apply. and our security will falter 93 Michael. abandon traditional power politics. but as Soviet-style missile-mounted warheads. which we fought during the Cold War with varying degrees of success. the United States should be in a good position to pressure the Iranians to abandon their program. This is a particularly interesting case to test the virtues of new-think against the old. Tehran holds Washington hostage by threatening to destabilize Iraq further. Iran maintains a large conventional army. There is absolutely nothing novel in any of this. the United States today faces a host of traditional challenges. which. Resident scholar @ American Enterprise Institute 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. and incompatible with a small footprint approach. for that matter--as many observers thought. for nearly fifteen years with North Korea. digging trenches and setting up machine guns as the Taliban lost a lopsided conventional campaign. as countless historical examples show. Their goals are subtly different. but they share several key features: the destruction of democracy. Basic lessons from past counterinsurgencies should inform our approach to these challenges. Even Osama bin Laden rallied his terrorists to fight as conventional soldiers in 2001. Misconceived though it might have been. Iran is well on its way to nuclear capability. unsupported by meaningful military threat. We have allies on both sides of Iran and hundreds of thousands of troops near both Iranian borders. Iran has violated The new approaches that the administration has pursued in the traditional area of nuclear nonproliferation are also leading to disaster. and cultural initiatives alongside the use of military power. Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger of failing. it has since started up again with a vengeance. Beyond al Qaeda. have given the Iranians leverage over us. They have seen that we are bogged down and distracted. 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. and the situation there may well destabilize the entire region. So does North Korea. we have declared our determination to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. It may not be necessary to attack those two states to force them to give up their weapons of mass destruction programs. Above all. forces with orders not just to train indigenous soldiers. which they hate. If we do not begin the necessary mobilization of our resources now. political. but there is no hope of convincing them to do so if they do not believe that we can and will defeat them.

free markets.democracy. On balance. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War” The Washington Quarterly. Michael.S. 84) Under the third option. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. Pg. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. U. and low-level conflicts. (Zalmay. including a global nuclear exchange. 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. Such a vision is desirable not because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. but bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a as an end in itself. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. such as nuclear proliferation. Sam & Megan 94 . and the rule of law.S. First. and conflicts globally Khalilzad 95 Defense Analyst at RAND. Finally.Hegemony Page 94 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Khalilzad US leadership solves nuke war. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. No. 2. Second. democracy. free trade. Vol. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. 18. U.

With ease. A coming retreat into fortified cities. too. religious orders. maybe even believed that they did. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. visit. Foreign Policy ) Could an apolar world today produce an era reminiscent of the age of Alfred? It could. 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. was not a global Christendom. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. from Hamburg to Gaza. nor an all-embracing Empire of Heaven. Religious revivals. labor. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. In Latin America. but downward. For more than two decades. so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it.” Surely their aspirations to global governance are fundamentally different from the spirit of the Dark Ages? Yet universal claims were also an integral part of the rhetoric of that era. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U. unaware of the existence of other The reality was political fragmentation. though with some important and troubling differences. humanity has entered an era characterized as much by disintegration as integration. it seems. increasingly confined to a few Page 5 strategic cities such as Kabul and Pristina. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder Michael. aircraft carriers. These groups can operate. The wealthiest ports of the global economy— from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. community is not global at all. Technology has transformed production. All the empires claimed to rule the world. Technology has upgraded destruction. the free flow of destructive technology empowers both criminal organizations and terrorist cells. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. It is. the International Monetary Fund. and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world. The trouble is. some. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. and China —retreating into their own regional spheres of influence. The reality. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. So what is left? Waning empires. who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. and cruise liners.Hegemony Page 95 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Ferguson Collapse of US hegemony causes a global power vacuum resulting in nuclear war Ferguson 04 professor of history at New York University's Stern School of Business and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University (Niall. the writ of the international civilizations. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. of course. If free flows of information and of means of production empower multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (as well as evangelistic religious cults of all denominations). In short. or even a return to the good old balance of power. the World Bank. globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. But what of the growing pretensions to autonomy of the supranational bodies created under U. Meanwhile. Be careful what you wish for. wherever they choose. Incipient anarchy. “A World without Power”. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. Meanwhile. Europe. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Sam & Megan 95 . And that is also true today. By contrast. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis.S. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. and the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) each considers itself in some way representative of the “international community. or do business. With the end of states' monopoly on the means of violence and the collapse of their control over channels of communication. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The defining characteristic of our age is not a shift of power upward to supranational institutions. say. targeting oil tankers. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. it would inevitably become a less open society.S. as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew. however. Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible. the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—so friction between the world's disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. it is the nonstate actors who truly wield global power—including both the monks and the Vikings of our time. in fact. one can imagine the world's established powers—the United States. Certainly. Houston or Chicago. In Africa. now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. leadership after the Second World War? The United Nations.

hoover. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. Europe. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. until recently. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. Nationalism in all its forms is back. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. It is shaped by configurations of power. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. but unnecessary. For instance.Hegemony Page 96 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Kagan US leadership prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict – prefer it to all other alternatives Kagan 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of Dreams. Armed embargos. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia. 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. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. too. and status. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into 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. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished. That could make wars between them less likely. and the Caucasus. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. owes its founding to American power. intensity. even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee. that great geopolitical miracle. however. and continuing through the Clinton years. In a genuinely multipolar world. the Middle East. This was its goal after the Second World War. and with Russia in Eastern Europe. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. honor. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. and now. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. and the Caucasus. beginning with the first Bush administration and Republican. if it ever went away. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. Democratic Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. increasingly. liberal and conservative. such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. Sam & Megan . Central Asia. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. however distant and one hopes that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. Return of History” Policy Review (http://www. and destructiveness. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. it would not. influence. But that’s not the way it works. they generally prefer their global place as “No. the Western Hemisphere. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Central Asia. The United States. 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.html#n10)] Finally. and since the end of the Cold War. 96 Michael. Even the European Union. In a more 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. Once having entered a region. Even when the United States engages in a war. there is the United States itself. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. and so is international competition for power. Central Asia.

Hegemony Page 97 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Kagan continues… Michael. Sam & Megan 97 .

too. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. In an era of burgeoning nationalism. if only to secure their interests. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. and especially since the end A different configuration of power. 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. is not only far from perfect but also under the umbrella of unipolarity. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. both on the seas and on the ground. These. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii.Hegemony Page 98 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Kagan Kagan continued… of the Cold War. and comity in the Middle East. Although some realist United States. to expand and fill the vacuum. In Europe. including the Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. particularly Iran. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. But even China. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible. 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. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. stability. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. 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. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. the United States. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. 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. independent. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. 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. or Iran. theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. It is further competition. But it is doubtful that it would suit offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. The current order. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. Sam & Megan 98 . China. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. one likely to draw the United States back in again. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. That commitment. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations Michael. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. Even the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. and Europe. of course. nationalist Japan. It will produce a new instability. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. In the Middle East. would produce its own kind of order. competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. India. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. China. The world hasn’t changed that much. This is especially true in East Asia. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. too.

no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. Sam & Megan 99 . Michael. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future.Hegemony Page 99 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW and nationalist movements.

It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy.S. should not even be attempted. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. In addition. Morocco. Indonesia and Australia. Without U. but nonetheless. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. Economic spin-offs foster the development Michael. South Korea and Japan. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. power. 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. In Defense of Primacy. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade. Iraq. power.S.3 So. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. Asia and the Caucasus. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). their people would be better off. Latin America. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. maximizes efficiencies and growth. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world.S. general.S. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome." Consequently. Rather. such as in Darfur. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan.Hegemony Page 100 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Thayer US hegemony solves all problems Thayer 06 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University [Bradley. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. 40 percent of them women. 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. it is important to note what those good things are. once states are governed democratically.S. democratic progress has been made in Algeria. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. Britain or the United States today. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. power behind it. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey. Sam & Megan 100 . Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. but been the growth of the global economy. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. The National Interest. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. primacy. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. in spreading democracy helps maintain U. India and Pakistan. Kuwait. one gathers from the argument. increasing respect for human rights. Indeed they do. leadership. Of course. With its allies. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. and mobility of capital and labor markets. The first has been a more peaceful world. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Israel and Egypt. December (lexis)] THROUGHOUT HISTORY. where 8. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. it is because they are more open. Second. most notably France and West Germany. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Third.5 million Afghans. By all accounts. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. the march of democracy has been impressive. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. and. windmills. During the Cold War. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Lebanon.S. U. And so. Today. respect for international property rights. voted in a critical October 2004 election. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. a robust monetary regime.

Hegemony Page 101 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW of military technology. 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. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. 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. Sam & Megan 101 . helping to ensure military prowess. Abandoning the positions of his youth. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. which are facilitated through American primacy. Michael.

The United States is the world's economic engine. scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq. In Africa. defense and medicine. life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim.N. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . High Commissioner for Refugees. educate and protect children in 157 countries .all free of charge? Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries Michael. The Koreas might fight another horrific war. “Why they need us: Imagine a world without America”." rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce. We're the world's ATM.Q. including the shipment of oil and gas . diplomatic influence. instead. and Sudan would have no peace agreement. more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan).just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan." gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. China would be the "Middle Kingdom.working in over 100 (mostly African) countries. they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin . resulting in millions of deaths. the United States is the global balance of power. Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" . would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. preference. Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid. Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia. driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology. 2001.ever . would still be going door to door.starting with 22 percent of the U. budget. al Qaeda would still be an honored guest. contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries. Absent U. On security.Hegemony Page 102 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Brookes The collapse of U.S. In Afghanistan. we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D. providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis.N." providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. In 2005. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed. hawking his nuclear wares. which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. too. vaccinate. A. 1. we are the world's "cop on the beat. and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator.S. "Globo-cop. Forget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. A resurgent Russia. Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway. economic power and unprecedented generosity.if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again. Heritage Foundation Commentary.S. While it's not our Without the U. Libya would not have given up its weapons. . North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal. july 4th) The picture isn't pretty. Set aside the differences America made last century . Comrade! In Europe. meanwhile. Sam & Megan 102 . . indeed. military might. 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 . We not only have the largest economy.and 31 percent of the budget of the U." In Asia. which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program. Moreover. leadership. Khan. leadership will spark wars around the globe Brookes 06 senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation (Peter.

Risks in the Middle East would be likely to increase. Major regional wars. to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe. and Iraq) as well as Egypt. p. The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century."2 Michael. "If the logic of American empire is unappealing. and possibly the Philippines. 53-54) Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States.. Thailand. 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. In Asia. and Taiwan would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons – which they have the technological capacity to do quite quickly. economic disruption. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fit-tingly observed.Hegemony Page 103 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Impact Authors – Lieber Withdrawal of US leadership causes multiple regional nuclear conflicts Lieber 05 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J. "apolarity. or to prevent a hostile power from dominating an entire region.S." elsewhere the dangers could increase. Sam & Megan 103 . of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves.. eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale. with regional competition among the major countries of the Gulf region (Iran.e. Although Europe would almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i."2z Similarly. national interests. Japan. of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions. Ferguson's warning may be hyperbolic. and risks to oil supplies are all readily conceivable. Saudi Arabia. South Korea. but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power. Based on past experience. Instability and regional competition could also escalate. not only between India and Pakistan. Syria. but the consequences would almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U. competition and even military rivalry between France and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have predicted. floods of refugees. but also in Southeast Asia involving Vietnam. the United States would almost certainly be drawn back into these areas. whether to defend friendly states." could bring "an anarchic new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism. Indonesia. but one with no hegemon at all. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. and Israel.

the United Kingdom. Germany. the status quo ante does not reappear. and limited appeal worldwide. which additionally faces uncertainties regarding its longterm national unity. The former major European powers – Great Britain. antiquated infrastructure. even though rather parochial in its intellectual and cultural interests. spread out over a longer time. undercutting not America's power to defend itself as such. with supranational arrangements increasingly assuming some of the special security roles of traditional nation-states. the steadying effect of American power will be indispensable to global stability. unambiguously earned inclusion among the top five in every one of the twenty¬ year intervals. As long as that commitment endures. and China. in any case. China. and the gap in the year 2000 between the top-ranked United States and the rest was vastly wider than ever before. would side with America if push came to shove. American society. The familiar powers of the last century are too fatigued or too weak to assume the role the United States now plays. America's role as the global stabilizer will also endure. populations. France. In any case. the conventional wisdom of the 1980s that Japan is destined to be the next "superstate" now has the ring of historical irony. in a comparative ranking of world powers (cumulative1y based on their economic strength. The more intense collisions – in the event of America's decline – could spark a wildfire of regional violence. but rather its ability to use that power to enlist others in a common effort to shape a more secure international environment 104 Michael. That role could also be undermined and de1egitimated by the misuse of U. any evident American decline might precipitate efforts to reinforce America's leadership. Germany.S. will at best be a regional power still constrained by an impoverished population. power. or because Americans tire or lose their sense of common purpose – America's global role could rapidly terminate. given their historical conflicts and clashing territorial claims – would lack the cohesion. But a gradual and controlled devolution of power could lead to an increasingly formalized global community of shared interest. 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. Japan. and France – are too weak to step into the breach.). even if it succeeds in maintaining high rates of economic growth and retains its internal political stability (both are far from certain). It can also remind us. rendered all the more dangerous by the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. and sociocultural worldwide preeminence. steadily sustained a protracted worldwide engagement against the threat of totalitarian communism and it is currently mobilized against international terrorism. The key question is: What will replace it? An abrupt termination of American hegemony would without doubt precipitate global chaos. Some leading states. The bottom line is twofold: For the next two decades. Nor will it yield to another dominant hegemon that would displace the United States by assuming a similar political. It too. etc. Japan's population is aging and its economy has slowed. economic. however. Conduct that is perceived worldwide as arbitrary could prompt America’s progressive isolation. An unguided progressive decline would have a similar effect. that some things endure for a long time. however. Sam & Megan . mi1itarybudgets and assets. Most important. Russia is no longer an imperial power. technological. Indeed. the top five slots at sequential twenty-year intervals have been shared by just seven states: the United States. will fade at some point. Professor of Foreign Policy @ Johns Hopkins University (Zbigniew "The Choice") History is a record of change. The same is true of India. Russia. while the principal challenge to American power can come only from within – either from the repudiation of power by the American democracy itself. It is noteworthy that since 1880. military. and when they disappear.Hegemony Page 104 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Good – Transition Wars 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. muscle. and its central challenge is to recover socioeconomically lest it lose its far eastern territories to China. in which international anarchy would be punctuated by eruptions of truly massive destructiveness. probably later than some wish and earlier than m any Americans take for granted. Should that commitment fade – either because terrorism has faded. Only the United States. So it will be with the current American global preponderance. In the next two decades. or from America's global misuse of its own power. Even a coalition among the above – a most unlikely prospect. 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. a reminder that nothing endures indefinitely. and energy needed to both push America off its pedestal and sustain global stability.

and much else followed. This is because international politics does not sleep. with their intelligence communities increasingly focused on each other. 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. This is not unusual in international politics but. I want to make it clear that the benefits that the world and the United States enjoy come with a cost. It never stops. Specifically. that they lead. Sam & Megan 105 . In this section. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats it confronts. But as professors teach in Economics 101. their diplomats striving to ensure that countries around the world do not align with the other. So it is with the United States today. pax Romana in Latin means the Roman peace. These are the costs. everything has a cost. These costs can be stark and brutal. In return. There is no hiding from threats and dangers in international politics. including even great powers. Throughout history. education. International politics is not a game or a sport. U.S. They are considerable. power protects the United States. is not often noticed. But right now states are competing with one another. Where Rome conquered. Stability Peace. That was true of the British Empire (pax Britannica) too. At least. but are unlikely to do so directly." there is no halftime and no rest. then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. 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)] Second. a common language. Peace and stability are major benefits of the American Empire. like good health. peace. There are no "time outs. order. or the stability brought about by the Roman Empire. Realizing this good requires that Americans be bold. and they have to be faced directly by proponents of the American Empire. know that it is unlikely that they could challenge the dominant state and win. not until a challenger (certainly China) thinks it can overthrow the dominant state (the United States). I believe that the substantial benefits are worth the costs. Every American should be conscious of them. although that good is little acknowledged. This means that there will be no wars between great powers. They may resort to other mechanisms or tactics to challenge the dominant country. peace and stability have been a major benefit of empires. But there will be intense security competition—both China and the United States will watch each other closely. Simply by declaring that the United States is going Michael. It means that some Americans will die in the service of their country. law. it provides stability. and their militaries seeing the other as their principal threat. Americans may not pay much attention to it until a crisis occurs. Rome's power was so overwhelming that no one could challenge it successfully for hundreds of years. it never takes a rest. but certainly is missed when absent. even by Americans. Americans enjoy the benefits that flow to a leader. No one gets anything for free. That sentence is as genuine and as important a statement about international politics as one can make. is its "normal" condition. I will demonstrate the good that comes from the American Empire. The United States has an opportunity to do an enormous amount of good for itself and the entire world. Leadership requires that the United States incur costs and run risks not borne by other countries. there is no free lunch. allows democracy to spread. In fact. It is equally the case that Americans should be aware of the benefits they enjoy. The American Empire is no exception.Hegemony Page 105 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 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)] A great amount of good comes from American dominance. furthers economic prosperity. 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. The result was stability within the Roman Empire. in fact.

In fact. Michael. and even on the United States itself. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom. to make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. 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. other countries will prey upon those interests. The same is true in the anarchic realm of international politics. Sam & Megan 106 . does not mean that others will respect its wishes to retreat.Hegemony Page 106 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW home. predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong.

The ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2001. whether it likes it or not. 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. freer. The job of conservatives is to ensure that those interventions are aligned with American interests and ideals. They won't." Let's not make the same mistakes again. These crises engendered others in the U. that amount is about the same as the combined defense budgets of the next 12 to 15 nations. And the new order. periodically intervening in a world order that it has done so much to establish is the only game in town. It would be less free.S.S. Since the end of World War II. less prosperous and less peaceful than the world we know today. once it was born. the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. 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. We think most people are like ourselves and then become disappointed when they do not live up to U. We know what happens when the U nited States decides to reject "interventionism.S. Going back even earlier in our history. the American people have also maintained their traditional ambivalence toward the rest of the world. the Bush administration has budgeted more than $600 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2009. "Is interventionism an organic plank of conservatism.2482677. the United States has adopted an increasingly assertive foreign policy to first contain Soviet communism and then. democratic nations. there is also nothing particularly "conservative" about interventionism. March 4th (http://www.latimes. withdrawal from Vietnam marked the beginning of a period of global catastrophe . as the Soviet Union expanded its influence in Central Asia. These are the fruits of American "interventionism. a rising China and an autocratic. and they are not solely the product of President Bush and the neocons. or is it the cancer that's destroying it?" I am going to take issue with the way the question is framed. and conducted missile strikes in Yemen. Pakistan and Somalia. We often wish our problems would go away. an unresolved Korean peninsular crisis. We grow frustrated with allies for not doing their "fair share" of maintaining global order. global involvement. Michael. when you look at America's failure to maintain the postVersailles Treaty order that it had helped build following the World War I. once Soviet communism had been destroyed.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-antle-continetti4mar04.story?ctrack=4&cset=true)] Today's prompt asks us. Sam & Megan 107 ." As the United States has adopted this new international role. however. standards. aggressive Russia have made many Americans anxious about the world and our place in it.Hegemony Page 107 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 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. American military commitments extend from Colombia to Kosovo to Japan. Africa and Central America and the Iranian revolution provided the first state vehicle for jihadism's war on the West. sent troops to the Philippines and Liberia. expand the sphere of liberal The net result of this foreign policy has been a richer. would not be pleasant. As is often pointed out. a belligerent Iran seeking nuclear weapons. For the United States. more peaceful world.S. It is not a pretty sight. you see the same pattern. These circumstances did not spring up overnight. You can see what happens when Americans turn inward by reading the history of the 1970s. another order would take its place. Truth is. We are reluctant to deploy military force and eager to withdraw once those forces are deployed. Not only is "interventionism" not "destroying" conservatism. the world economy tanked and more war followed. government and the global economy. U. who will?” LA Times.1. Illiberalism was allowed to expand. But there is no escaping U. Including proposed supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The transition from one to another would be characterized by conflict.

and the assumption that one’s adversary is a value-maximizing rational actor. in the most probable post-imperial world. the difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States.S. If you can keep it”. Prolif causes nuclear war – deterrence fails Lieber 07 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J. or anyone else. materials or weapons themselves be diverted into the hand of terrorist groups willing to pay almost any price to acquire them. fostered Holocaust denial. The late Saddam Hussein had shown himself to be reckless and prone to reject outside information that differed from what he wished to hear. now. will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. The National Interest. will be more exposed to this danger. and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. a country embroiled in an intense regional crisis may become the target of a disarming first strike or. Iran. and called for Israel to be wiped off the map Michael. would be sufficient to protect the national interests of the U.Hegemony Page 108 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Good – Prolif Shell Heg solves prolif Rosen 03 Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University (Stephen. It is Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems. on the other hand. may be driven by a use-it-or-lose it calculation. which seemed to work during the Cold War. without significant exception. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U. Spring) United States could give up the imperial mission. Even though the spread of missile technology.S. It may be that all other peoples. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. Taiwan.–Soviet nuclear balance took two decades to become relatively stable and on at least one occasion. some have asserted that deterrence and containment. and in Iran. Moreover. but the spread of these weapons carries with it the possibility of devastating regional wars. “ An Empire. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect. And Iranian President Ahmadinejad has expressed beliefs that suggest an erratic grip on reality or that call into question his own judgment. Indonesia and others. For example. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans. Iraq and perhaps Algeria. Saudi Arabia. there is a likelihood that the U. bases and allies surely might be. the parties came to the nuclear brink. South Korea. the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. And control by rational actors in new or recent members of the nuclear club is by no means a foregone conclusion. the proliferation of nuclear weapons could Over the longer term. stable deterrence requires assured second strike capability. and coupled with become an increasingly dangerous source of instability and conflict. Current friends would feel less secure and. APSA Paper 2007) In addition to the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology and terrorism. A robust nuclear balance is difficult to achieve. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. and those of close allies. Sam & Megan 108 . and in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal.S. embraced conspiracy theories about 9/11. would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. If the logic of American empire is unappealing. he has invoked the return of the twelfth or hidden Imam. American territory may not be at immediate risk within the next five to seven years. "Persistent Primacy and the Future of the American Era". Such views are altogether too complacent. In assessing nuclear proliferation risks in the late-Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. in North Korea. Europe and mainland Asia. its interests. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. Not only might the technology. Malaysia. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile. The U. but they would not be small. or pretensions to it. the knowledge that whichever side suffered an initial nuclear attack would have the capacity to retaliate by inflicting unacceptable damage upon the attacker. forces from the Middle East.S.

If the United States withdrew from Europe and East Asia. was the spread of nuclear weapons. Sam & Megan 109 . its deployed troops. Heg Solves Prolif Hegemony solves allied prolif. In the same vein. without nuclear arms of their own. nine countries had ballistic missiles. 10 years ago. whether from a state or non-state actor. Today there are nine members of the once-exclusive nuclear weapons club. 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. including Europe. p 189-191) The greatest threat to their security that the members of the international system did face in the new century. He is also a member of the congressional U. For instance. or a nuclear-armed nuclear weapons poses a second danger.S. and perhaps ultimately Taiwan. they may carry. A North Korean nuclear arsenal would pose yet a third threat: nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist group such as al Qaeda. Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might. military's capabilities help put teeth in the PSI. Twenty-five years ago. said it best when describing the value of missile defense in Michael.S. rogue state prolif and terrorism Mandelbaum 05 Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins (Michael. This defensive system will not only provide deterrence to the use of these weapons. by itself. which the Iran. change the international relations of East Asia for the worse. While missile defense has its critics. While many of the PSI's efforts aren't made public due to the potential for revealing sensitive intelligence sources and methods. however. could spew poisonous radiation over populated areas. In 2003. a terrorist organization probably could not construct a nuclear weapon itself . Perhaps General Trey Obering. It would surely make Europe and East Asia less comfortable places. multilateral organization of 90-plus nations which uses national laws and joint military operations to fight proliferation. major countries in Europe and Asia will feel the need to acquire their own nuclear armaments. and relations among the countries of these regions more suspicious. The spread of 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. in the absence of an American nuclear guarantee. South Korea and Japan. But it could purchase either a full-fledged nuclear explosive or nuclear material that could form the basis for a device that. Unfortunately. but also provide policymakers with a greater range of options in preventing or responding to such attacks. Heg solves prolif Brookes 08 Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. an unlikely development after the over-throw of Saddam Hussein's regime. It could. according to the U. the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. the missile and WMD proliferation trend is not positive. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by such affluent. an initiative to counter the spread of WMD and their delivery systems throughout the world. 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. it may provide the best answer to the spread of ballistic missiles and the unconventional payloads. countries governed by regimes at odds with their neighbors and hostile to prevailing international norms. trigger a war. while not actually exploding.S. the United States is also developing the world's most prodigious-ever ballistic missile defense system to protect the American homeland. and friends. November 24. might well decide to equip themselves with nuclear weapons of their own. trigger arms races similar to the one between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U. The first is that. some operations do make their way to the media. with Iran perhaps knocking at the door. and Japan with a nuclear-armed China. A nuclear-armed Iraq. They would seek these weapons in order to avoid an imbalance in power that might work to their disadvantage. Nuclear proliferation poses three related dangers. the PSI stopped exports to Iran's missile program and heavy water. than was the case at the outset of the twenty-first century. democratic. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century. peaceful countries would not.Hegemony Page 109 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. Today. a voluntary. which many believe is actually a nuclear weapons program.China Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter. Heritage.related equipment to Tehran's nuclear program. For instance. would make the international relations of the Persian Gulf far more dangerous. including the WMD. President Bush created the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). 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.' A nuclear-armed North Korea would similarly Especially if the United States withdrew from the region. a far more plausible prospect. killing or infecting many thousands of people. Germany might come to consider it imprudent to deal with a nuclear-armed Russia. there were only six nuclear weapons states. Lacking the infrastructure of a sovereign state.' Nuclear materials are potentially available for purchase not only in North Korea but elsewhere as well. State Department. allies. there are 28 countries with ballistic missile arsenals of varying degrees.

" Michael. Sam & Megan 110 .Hegemony Page 110 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 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.

S. U. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. China. when in the last the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves. in Political Science from Harvard University [Jerome Corsi (Expert in Antiwar movements and political violence).S. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues. So. it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. too. Today.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca. North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive.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. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. 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. 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. U. the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. for example. CORSI 05 Ph. Also . groups opposed to U. 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. 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. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Unlike 9-11. the military. Were American power to decline significantly. Serbia. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world. and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order. As discussed below. Because the United States is so powerful. Force in order to deter threats to the West’s oil supplies. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position.Hegemony Page 111 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Good – Terrorism Shell Heg solves terrorism Walt 02 professor of international affairs at Harvard (Stephen. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely. Would the U. The US will respond to the next attack – and the world will end. North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. In China. 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. members of Congress. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places. At the beginning of the Cold War. Iraq. pg. its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan. the United States created its Rapid Deployment when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001.mil/press/review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. however. they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive. “American Primacy” http://www. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. 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 assist them in developing stable democratic orders. our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America.D. If devastation to the world calculation.The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam. the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the “focused enmity” of the United States (to use William Wohlforth’s apt phrase). of course. which either were vaporized instantly or are the president. too. If Russia.navy. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II. our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. The apocalypse would be upon us.Then. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures.S. especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had Michael. Sam & Megan 111 . and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya. With a population already over 1. we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy.7 The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. Atomic Iran. in 1990–91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait.S. and because its society is so wealthy. the former Soviet Union. and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s.Still. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are. The now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble.nwc . to destroy the whole religion of Islam. or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise.

The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. yet every president is by nature a politician. been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. So weakened by the loss of New York. Sam & Megan 112 .Hegemony Page 112 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. But Michael. For this there would be no effective answer. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. 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. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty.

Weekly Standard. regroup. much remains to be done before Americans can feel safe. but that is not enough. The horrors of the day are now receding into memory. or even after D-Day and Iwo Jima. Much remained to be done before the monstrous evils of fascism and Nazism were defeated. In a world where North Korea may already have nuclear weapons. can seem almost as distant as December 7. even necessary. 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.S. and Iran is less than two years away from having them. security depends on alliances with shaky dictatorships like Pakistan. The war against Islamist terrorism and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not over. We must never forget. in a world where al Qaeda continues to plot. Two battles have been won. September 11. if we return to the 1990s policy of pretending globalization will solve all our problems. never forgive--and never flag in our determination to prevent a recurrence. If we revert to our pre9/11 passivity. Lexis) A short pause to rest." then we may awake before long to a disaster worse than 9/11. 1941. possibly a fatal one. in a world where U. and states like Syria continue to support transnational terrorist groups. World War II was not finished after El Alamein and Midway. So it is today. and Saudi Arabia--in such a world. Sam & Megan 113 . Michael. But turning away from the world's dangers for long would be a mistake. if we place our faith once again in accommodation and "stability. if you do not wander down to Ground Zero. Heg Solves Terrorism US power projection is key to stopping terrorism Boot 03 senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations (Max. and recharge is fine.Hegemony Page 113 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. 5/3. Egypt. 2001.

And because of the emphasis on system-level explanations. invoke the examples of great empires that came to grief through imperial overreach or through causing other powerful states to form coalitions against them. he could have been deterred by the overwhelming power of the United States. By acting without the support of others.S. 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. The argument behind the necessity of dispatching Saddam. global position by calling into question the legitimacy of U. was more [End Page 160] remote. Sam & Megan 114 . more dangerous nations to follow a similar course. those theorists got it backward. 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. 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. “Real Leaders Do Soft Power: Learning the Lessons of Iraq. that states with the capacity to use WMD or who make these weapons available to terrorists can be reliably deterred. 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. Spring. And in the case of Iraq. This element of U. realists believed Saddam Hussein could have been dissuaded from attacking his neighbors and that even if he eventually acquired nuclear weapons. The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century. however.S. 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. which compel the United States to push the envelope of preventive force. such as approval by the UN Security Council or a regional organization such as NATO. Their evidence only assumes a world where we are not a benevolent hegemon – Soft power solves any risk of a terrorist attack Steinberg.S. 08 – Dean of the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at Texas Austin (James. some realists downplay the traits of especially violent and fanatical individual leaders or groups. The administration believed that overwhelming U. leadership. in comparing the United States with other dominant powers of the past. Some in this group. (p.” Washington Quarterly. Yet. U.Hegemony Page 114 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW 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. soft power is particularly critical in the face of terrorist threats.S. 2008) the strategy undermined the U. the invasion of Iraq unintentionally fueled a global public perception that both al Qaeda and the United States were threats to peace and stability. for example. Third. 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. Michael. as Richard Betts notes. 29)) Realist views tend to rest on certain general assumptions about the nature of world politics.S.. However.

Hegemony Page 115 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Heg Good – Democracy

Heg key to promote democracy

Thayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley “American Empire: A Debate” (pg 42-43)]

The American Empire gives the United States the ability to spread its form of government, democracy, and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Using American power to spread democracy can be a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as for the United States. This is because democracies are more likely to align themselves with the United States and be sympathetic to its worldview. In addition, there is a chance—small as it may be—that once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of conflict will be reduced further. Natan Sharansky makes the
argument that once Arabs are governed democratically, they will not wish to continue the conflict against Israel." This idea has had a big effect on President George W. Bush. He has said that Sharansky's worldview "is part of my presidential DNA."" Whether democracy in the Middle East would have this impact is debatable. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in October 2004, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. Elections were held in Iraq in January 2005, the first free elections in that country's history. The military power of the United States put Iraq on the

Democracy has spread to Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Caucasus, and now even the Middle East is becoming increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Westernstyle democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt. The march of democracy has been impressive. Although democracies have their flaws, simply put, democracy is the best form of government. 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 United States should do what it can to foster the spread of democracy throughout the world.
path to democracy.

Nuclear War

Diamond 95, Senior researcher fellow at Hoover Institution (Larry, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990s: ACTORS AND INSTRUMENTS, ISSUES AND IMPERATIVES)

The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically “cleanse” their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. 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. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Michael, Sam & Megan

115

Hegemony Page 116 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

Ext. Heg Solves Democracy

US hegemony is essential to support democracies

Diamond 96 Senior researcher fellow at Hoover Institution (Larry, Orbis, “Beyond the Unipolar Moment: Why the United States Must Remain Engaged”, p. 405-413)

global power has been an important reason why certain countries have become models for emulation by others. The global power of the United States, and of its Western democratic allies, has been a factor in the diffusion of democracy around the world, and certainly is crucial to our ability to help popular, legitimate democratic forces deter armed threats to their overthrow, or to return to power (as in Haiti) when they have been overthrown. Given the linkages among democracy, peace, 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. 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
In the past, to hegemonic power within any major region.

Hegemony is key to democracy promotion

McFaul 04, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University (Michael, “Democracy Promotion as a World Value”, Washington Quarterly, vol 28, no 1, p 147)

There is a genuine correlation between the advance of democracy as well as democratic norms worldwide and the growth of U.S. power. No country has done more to strengthen the norms and practices of democracy around the world than the United States. If Adolf Hitler had prevailed in World War II, democratic values would have survived, but few democratic regimes would have remained. Similarly, if the Cold War had ended with U.S. disintegration, rather than Soviet dissolution, command economies run by oneparty dictatorships would be the norm and democracy the exception. Thus, even good ideas need powerful actors to defend and advance them.

Michael, Sam & Megan

116

Hegemony Page 117 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW

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)]

Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. It has created a Liberal International Economic Order (LIED)—a network of worldwide free trade and commerce, respect for intellectual property rights, mobility of capi¬tal and labor markets—to promote economic growth. The stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly states in the Third World. The American Empire has created this network not
Cohen put this well when he acknowledged that "economists and soldiers share the same interest in stability";

out of altruism but because it benefits the economic well-being of the United States. In 1998, the Secretary of Defense Wil¬liam

soldiers create the conditions in which the American economy may thrive, 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, thereby helping to promote investment and prosperity...business follows the flag." Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the American Empire comes from

Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat, researcher at the World Bank, prolific author, and now a professor who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India that strongly condemned empire. He has abandoned the position of his youth and is now one of the strongest proponents of the American Empire. Lal has traveled the world and, in the course of his journeys, has witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of economic development. He realized that free markets were necessary for the development of poor countries, and this led him to recognize that his faith in socialism was wrong. Just as a conservative famously is said to be a liberal who has been mugged by reality, 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.' Lal

the only way to bring relief to the desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the American Empire. Empires provide order, and this order "has been essential for the working of the benign processes of globalization, which promote prosperity."62 Globalization is the process of creating a common economic space, which leads to a growing integration of the world economy through the increasingly free movement of goods, capital, and labor. It is the responsibility of the United States, Lal argues, to use the LIEO to promote the well-being of all economies, but particularly those in the Third World, so that they too may enjoy economic prosperity.
submits that

Econ stagnation causes nuclear war

Mead 92 Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, (Walter Russell, World Policy Institute, 1992) Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced the international market economy – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe the

But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South, rich against poor. Russia, China, 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.

system can work for them.
that case,

Michael, Sam & Megan

117

or fail to implement the proper policies. the United States "became the indispensable supplier of demand to the world. excessive values for particular assets. In responding to these events. First. it was not the only one. Markets also have an inherent tendency to form bubbles. Second. played by Henry Travers. 192-195) Although the spread of nuclear weapons. governments have increased rather than cut spending. who believes his existence to have been worthless. shows James Stewart. Moreover." Mandelbaum also points Heg solves economic collapse Mandelbaum 05 Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins (Michael. playing the bank clerk George Bailey. counted as the most serious potential consequence of the abandonment by the United States of its role as the world's government. George Bailey learns that people he knows and loves turn out to be far worse off without him." Fourth. with the corresponding increase in the likelihood that a nuclear shot would be fired in anger somewhere in the world. governments have taken steps that have helped to prevent a recurrence of the disasters of that decade. Sam & Megan 118 . “Power for Good. in the monetary realm. In contrast to the widespread practice of the 1930s. the United States has made the dollar "the world's 'reserve' currency" and supplied loans to "governments in the throes of currency crises. Vol. 11 No. and would become in the future. the United States has pushed for the expansion of international trade by midwifing the World Trade Organization. and other instruments of liberalization. for instance. 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 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 Michael. Most importantly. or implement improper ones. acting on the lessons drawn from that experience by professional economists. governments can make errors. the North American Free Trade Agreement. Heg Solves Economy Heg key to the economy Boot 06 senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Max. for instance. They can act too slowly. in which the angel Clarence. A twenty-first-century American retreat could have similarly adverse international economic consequences. 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. especially periodic recessions and currency crises. The Weekly Standard. 28) to five economic benefits of American power. policing Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes. since the Great Depression.Hegemony Page 118 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Ext. whether seventeenth century Dutch tulips or twentieth century Japanese real estate and Thai currency. Since the end of the Cold War. the lifeblood of the global economy. the 1920s and 1930s. 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. how life in his small town of Bedford Falls would have unfolded had he never been born. 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. for example. In the previous period of American international reticence. by providing a ready market for goods exported by such countries as China and Japan. Market economies remain subject to cyclical downturns. the United States provides the security essential for international commerce by. This means that measures that successfully address economic malfunctions at one time may have less effect at another. political authorities now understand that Still. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century. which public policy can limit but putting up barriers to imports in an attempt to revive domestic production will in fact worsen economic conditions everywhere. has not found a way to eliminate entirely. like a living organism. Since the 1930s. p. In retrospect. change constantly and sometimes rapidly: Capital flows across sovereign borders. just as medical science must cope with the appearance of new strains of influenza against which existing vaccines are not effective. So it is with the United States and its role as the world's government. The absence of such a role could weaken those conditions and aggravate those problems. the global economy and the national economies that comprise it. Without that role. America the Indispensable”. by applying the lessons of the past.' In the face of reduced demand. And fifth. Third. the world very likely would have been in the past. that cause economic harm when the bubble bursts and prices plunge. 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. a less secure and less prosperous place. the United States safeguards the extraction and export of Middle Eastern oil. a serious. 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. the global economy suffered serious damage that a more active American role might have mitigated. prolonged failure of the international economy. far more rapidly and in much greater volume in the early twenty-first century than ever before.

Similarly. Michael. come to support global economic activity. at the dawn of the new century.Hegemony Page 119 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW of its principal safety features. In this sense. a world without America would be the equivalent of a freeway full of cars without brakes. as they are historically prone to do. should the American government abandon some or all of the ways in which it had. which keeps countries from smashing into each other. Sam & Megan 119 . 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.

air force. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. He is also a member of the congressional U. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -. If China were to retaliate. it cannot be ruled out entirely. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. LN] a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. the Philippines and. for China puts sovereignty above everything else. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. free-market democracy. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. China would quickly unite Taiwan with the mainland under force of arms.China Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter. commander of THE high-intensity scenario postulates the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War.truce or a broadened war. especially involving its power projection forces--i. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable. In the region. by that principle. which could have led to the there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Sam & Megan 120 . hostilities between India and Pakistan. In his book The Korean War.e. 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. short of using nuclear weapons. Japan. 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. Taiwan.” Jun 25. this means South Korea. Singapore. east Asia will be set on fire.raise the possibility of a nuclear war. In south Asia. navy. 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.. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq.S. we would see the destruction of civilisation. Indeed. growing at over 10 percent per year for over a decade. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. Heritage. China hasn't renounced the use of force against its neighbor and rival.Hegemony Page 120 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Heg Good – China War Heg deters China/Taiwan war Brookes 08 Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. could enter a new and dangerous phase. It increased its defense budget nearly 18 percent annually over the past two years. There would be no victors in such a war. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. to a lesser extent. a vibrant. It is believed by many analysts that absent American military might. With the US distracted. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. all aimed at Taiwan. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -. November 24. I would daresay that military tensions across the 100mile-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. the system of military alliances in Asia that the United States maintains provides the basis for stability in the Pacific. He said Michael. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it.horror of horrors -. and ballistic missile forces. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. 2008 We know that China is undergoing a major military buildup. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was use of nuclear weapons. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. In general.

China and Japan that arose at the end of the Vietnam War. 08 – Prof. The foundation of that peace has been a remarkable set of relationships between the US.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/ June 2) It can help to start by thinking about the sources of the remarkable peace that has characterised East Asia in recent decades. Sam & Megan 121 .iiss. and which I call the Post-Vietnam Order. The US has simultaneously assured China about its security from Japan. http://www. and Japan about its security from China.Hegemony Page 121 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW Decline Causes Asian Instability Hegemony solves Asian stability White. 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. of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute (Hugh. Obviously. As Rich Armitage said over lunch yesterday. Michael. “Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable”. but crucially. it has been the best thirty to thirtyfive years in Asia’s long history.

to escape from ensnaring and diverting lower-level conflicts within its ‘backyard’. might have been able to put a stop to Milosevic's ambitions with a well-timed threat of punishing military action. only to discover that they had been misled. unlike all other modern great powers. provides Brazil with some capacity to develop a relatively autonomous regional role. Heg decreases interventionism Kristol and Kagan 02 Editor of the Weekly Standard. realized early on that there was no clear distinction between American moral concerns in Bosnia and America's national interest there. attempts to develop a global role can easily stir the animosity. Much is made of the unique position of the United States and the degree to which. 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. at the same time. for the most part. In each case. that Michael. This pattern has been visible in the cases of both the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas. perhaps counterintuitively. 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. Had the Bush Administration. with the enormous credibility earned in the Gulf War. work to undercut or forestall the emergence of other. often dated too early and its extent exaggerated). of regional neighbours. International Affairs. Oxford. the United States. and to Brazil’s more assertive regional policy within South America more generally. may in fact mean fewer. It is this fact that. a broader and more forward-leaning conception of the national interest might have made the later large and potentially costly interventions unnecessary It is worth pointing out. or more accurately contain. The same could be said of American interventions in Panama and the Gulf.Hegemony Page 122 of 122 7 Week Juniors – HPSW A2: Heg Bad – Intervention 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. Hegemony. (Andrew. not more. to avoid having a regional policy at all (as has arguably been the case since 2001). smaller regional groupings that could emerge as effective challengers to the US. especially on the part of Argentina. overseas interventions than under the "vital interest" standard.wnyc. This is certainly true (even if the rise of the US to regional hegemony is other important regional aspect of US power is the ability to avoid excessively deep entanglement or involvement and. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein were given reason to believe that the United States did not consider its interests threatened by their behavior. Sam & Megan 122 . and on the blending of principle with material interest.org/books/16811)] a foreign policy premised on American hegemony. A similar. 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. 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. but less often noted. it faced no geopolitical challenge from within its region and was able to prevent. But the for long periods. Published Online: Jan 24 2006 12:00AM) The contrast with the United States is instructive. the influence of extraregional powers. Second. liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers? (p 1-19). or at least raise the concerns. Third. It has been able to take the region for granted and. though. the resulting crisis eventually required the deployment of thousands of troops on the ground. A passive world-view encouraged American leaders to ignore troubling developments which eventually metastasized into full blown threats to American security. But because the Bush team placed Bosnia outside the sphere of "vital" American interests. for example.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.