CASE FOR THE HEGEMON: WHAT THE US SHOULD DO ON THE WORLD STAGE

 

Outlining the Case for the Superpower

After the fall of the USSR the world’s power distribution between nation-states has become unipolar. The US remains as a sole superpower dominating any sole nation in military strength. Because of the dominance of International Realism on the world stage and the inherent threats to international stability a multipolar world brings, the US goal in foreign policy should be to remain a benevolent sole hegemon.

Realism has come to be an excellent tool that is commonly used to explain interactions between states. On the personal level individuals, in the US, are not allowed to violate the rights of another individual because there is a system of laws dictating that certain actions are not allowed as they violate others rights. These laws restrain self-interest and prevent a person from acting in a manner which will harm others. If these laws were removed along with the bonds holding a state together, to some extent, all individuals would by default fall back into solely self-interest beings in which only actions are taken which are motivated to fulfill needs of one person or one family unit. For there would be anarchy: a state of lawlessness and political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Now to bring the analogy to the world stage; as there is no world governing body above the individual state’s governed territory, the world on the grand scale is in and has been in a state of anarchy. In dealing with other nations, nation-states only operate to service their individual good, while making alliances and treaties with some nations to foster the interest of the sole nation. States attempt to expand (physically and nonphysically through spheres of influence and private business) to obtain critical natural resources and ability to shape other states actions to reflect the interests of the more powerful state. International organizations exist to be used as tools of self-interest and will only continue to exist if nation-states see it advantageous for the organization to continue to be a source of leverage or credibility in the global environment. These international organizations will never contain enough power to function as a world governing body as the enforcement mechanisms are implausible and individual states will never (at least in my life time) seed enough sovereignty over to the international organization for it to establish law over all states.

After World War II the USSR and the US rose to super power status through the expansion of their own economic and political systems. The world stood on the breaking point of global total war. The threat of ending all life on earth was higher then than at any time period before or since. With two world powers grappling for support and the extensive arms race, conflict almost became a reality. The instability brought upon by a multipolar world pushes the world towards oblivion. A world in which a sole super power exerts dominance, through both the ‘stick and the carrot’ approach and at a last resort low level conflicts, is superior to the alternative. This is not just in the interests of the US but the world.

The US must focus on preventing the next Hitler or Stalin, from challenging US interests across the globe. Counter balancing to off set US power must be broken up through forming alliances and preventing the consolidation of rivals. Keeping some areas destabilized can be justified to prevent this consolidation. International support must be rallied to force out rogue states which resist the existing power structure. The US must work with its allies to create a world open to western values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The guiding hand in geopolitics should be that of the sole hegemon as it is true the world remains a Realist one.