How did US involvement with the creation of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank lead to it becoming a global hegemon?

A global hegemon is a supreme leader of world order emphasizing leadership and dominance over other nations. The United States is the most current and prime example of a global hegemon today. Mostly using techniques of 'hard power' through dominance of global economies and military power. Some of these hegemonic qualities can be related to the nations involvement with Intergovernmental Organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Firstly, one of the most important relationships in answering this question is between the US and the United Nations. The UN was set up after the victory of World War II by the US and European states and agreements were signed by 51 states including China, UK, India, USSR etc. This was set up with the aim of maintaining peacekeeping, now with 193 member states. US involvement in the UN is also what makes it controversial, with the UN headquarters located in Manhattan. For instance, the US has one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means it has phenomenal power in terms of international decision making and vetoing decisions made against their national interest. This IGO is considered the creation of the US, with then President claiming "Roosevelt saw the United Nations as his crowning achievement of his political career." The Bretton Woods Conference was also held in 1944 to establish a monetary and trade regime which was stable and predictable, upholding Western values of opening world markets, providing liberal economy and privatization which are principle factors of the IMF and World Bank.

The International Monetary Fund is an organization of 188 countries which contribute funds to a global banking system with the ability to then borrow money and other resources. Despite evidence of aiding economic stability and reducing poverty, the IMF has been controversial due to it's biased nature towards rich core countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan, with these countries holding most of the voting power, with the US voting share being at almost 18% while other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all possessing less than 1%. This means that the IMF is set up to further the ideas and values of countries like the US. This also furthers it's status as a global hegemon, promoting Neoliberalism. This allows the US and other developed nations to have a dominance over other less developed countries, IGO's such as the IMF can be criticized for furthering elements of Neo-Colonialism.

In terms of the World Bank, there are striking similarities to the biased nature of the World Bank, with the US leading international decision making as they have the largest percentage of voting power, followed once again by countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Japan. The World Bank has been highly criticized by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) arguing that the system was set up promoting inflation and a world in which international trade is state dominated, with the free market ideology possibly leading to policies which are damaging to the weaker global economies which is seen as a way in which the US holds powers over other nations via. exploitation of economies. The introduction of the conditional loaning system offers loans to less developed nations on the basis of high interest rates, opening up trade and privatizing businesses to global TNC's (often those of the United States). The interest of the World Bank is dominated by a small group of the most economically powerful nations.

Ultimately, the United States involvement in the creation and agendas set by these Intergovernmental Organizations such as the UN, IMF and WB  is very strong, it's emphasis on the United States role in international decision making and the dominance of global economy consolidating the nation's role on the world stage as the most influential global hegemon, furthering their status as a uni polar superpower.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.