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.

Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics

Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.

Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.

Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).

In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.

Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.