After its participation in WWII, the United States achieved a meteoric rise to prominence and influence. The fall of the Soviet Union left the USA as sole superpower, with one of the largest economies in the world and uncontested military might. The USA became global hegemon.

A state possessing hegemony finds itself in a unique position: it can project (or perhaps impose) its vision and values on the rest of the world without encouraging the same behaviour from others – for no other state approaches the power necessary to challenge the hegemon should its vision differ. This is the reason that the United States can launch pre-emptive invasions while any other country attempting the same would be accused of violating sovereignty; it is the reason that the United States can sit on the UN Security Council and also unilaterally defy it, without punishment.

However, with the recent economic crash in the USA, some have begun to speculate that the country’s capacity to act as global hegemon is diminishing. This belief is reinforced by some of President Obama’s foreign policy activities. He has talked openly of creating a world of equal partners, and has taken steps towards reconciliation with long-standing political enemies, such as Cuba. Do these things signal the end of US supremacy?

Probably. It would be no real surprise if US power waned. The strain of acting as global hegemon is too great for any state to sustain indefinitely – history has seen countless powers rise and fall. Being the top tier in a hierarchy of nations means absorbing concentrated blame when international affairs go awry. To be the chief supervisor of a world order requires tremendous resources, and it means funneling those resources away from oneself. Eventually, populations become unwilling to pay these prices. Constant blame calls a country’s trustworthiness and competence into question (the private military contractor formerly known as Blackwater, anyone?) and hurts the pride of its citizens. With ballooning problems stemming from the economic crash, Americans may very well feel that issues at home deserve more attention than issues abroad. Compound this with a sinking global reputation following some debacles under the Bush administration, and it seems quite plausible that the Americans might willingly step down from their role as global hegemon.

The question arises: is the fall of a sole superpower a good thing, a bad thing, or nothing at all? One might be immediately gladdened by the dissolution of a seemingly unfair hierarchy, yet many experts in the fields of international relations and political science point to ways that hegemony is stabilizing. They argue that a hegemon can impose order on an otherwise chaotic system. Politics between states is anarchic by default. No state has authority over any other; they are equal, in a sense. No country has recourse to a global governor should its neighbour choose to invade it, break an agreement for selfish gains, etc. This creates an environment in which inter-state trust is lacking, for there is no guarantee that noble behaviour will be rewarded or that opportunism and deceit will be punished. How could you trust your neighbours to honour a treaty, knowing there would be no consequences if they broke it as soon as doing so was in their interest?

A global hegemon, the argument goes, can remove this dilemma. With one state holding unassailable economic and military strength, there exists a leader – an entity that can reward and punish – that has to the power to hold countries accountable for their actions. Under this system, international cooperation becomes easier, since states can trust that their neighbours will act in accordance with the rules and incentives provided under the hegemon’s auspices.

One problem with this idea is that no given state has the legitimacy to spearhead the shaping of the world. States, and particularly their leaders, have personal interests. Countries need to secure access to resources, and politicians need to impress their constituents or clients. It is unreasonable to expect that anyone can wear the hat of national leadership while also wearing the hat of an unbiased, just, altruistic world patron. There is no state, no leader, who is neutral and objective enough to inhabit this role – those who try inevitably meet resistance from those whose values differ (it is not difficult to interpret the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” in these terms). Such a conflict may undermine global stability in the long run, creating new chaos while resolving the old. Moreover, as mentioned before, hegemony is not sustainable – ultimately the burdens become too great for one entity to shoulder.

This is not to say that the world must choose between ineffective and impermanent hegemony on the one hand and anarchy on the other. Multilateral institutions (economic unions, regional associations, etc) should not be underestimated, despite the fact that they only function so long as their members choose to cooperate. Consider how, at the very least, small and temporary agreements are relatively easy to create and abide by. States often have common goals, and if one cannot trust others to honour agreements for honour’s sake, one can always trust others to act in their own interest. Once the ball of cooperation has begun to roll under these simple and rational conditions, precedents become set, and norms and expectations develop. These can be built upon to create lasting institutions between increasing numbers of states, which can provide positive and negative incentives as well as any hegemon can. Turkey and the European Union demonstrate this phenomenon.

The EU, an institution which was formed by a slow process of mutually beneficial monetary collaboration, is now reputable and powerful. For years, Turkey has petitioned for entrance, attempting social and political reforms in order to meet admission standards. The benefits that come with EU membership have motivated Turkey to try to conform to a certain structure. This shows how multilateral institutions, developed from the bottom-up and with the input of many nations, wield the power to affect political change. It is slow and difficult, but institutions such as this can mitigate international anarchy, while having advantages over a hegemon by being more sustainable and more legitimate, as they feature input, participation, and burden-sharing from varied sources.

The hegemony of the United States may very well diminish, this is no surprise. President Obama’s actions and words seem to welcome such an event, and US domestic conditions are right for it. This does not mean that the sphere of international relations is doomed to mistrust and anarchy, as multilateral agreements have the power to carve out pockets of shared norms, expectations, and incentives, in which real cooperation and collaboration can exist. Despite hegemonic stability theory, order and good relations do not require a single superpower nation.

‘Policy’ image by Mark Cummins

Zak Rose · Ottawa, Canada

Zachary Rose is a Canadian citizen with a Bachelor's degree from McGill University in Political Science, specializing in the developing world and international relations. Aside from politics, his passions include fencing, acting and directing for the theatre and cooking with woks.

zak@antillean.org