Could Hillary Clinton be the next US President?

In light of recent news, Hillary Clinton declaring she will run as a Democratic candidate in the next US Presidential Elections in 2016, there has been discussion and debate over whether she can become the next US leader.

Hillary Clinton was a United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2008, serving as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. As the only First Lady to have ever run for office, she's a political figurehead. Clinton has been central to the promoting of 'smart power', economic and military power in conjunction with diplomacy and soft power techniques in regards to foreign policy, and is outspoken about the empowerment of women. As a liberal politician, Clinton may draw large support from minority communities, due to her support of gay marriage and citizenship for illegal immigrants stands in stark contrast to traditional Republican views.

However, there is very little opposition to Hillary Clinton within the Democrat Party, which has become less divided during Barack Obama's administration since 2008. However, it has been rare throughout history for a new candidate to attain a third term for either Democrats or Republicans, examples being Al Gore in 2008 and John McCain in 2000, respectively. This could pose a problem for the Democrat Party generally, no matter who is in leadership of the party.

With the campaign line, "Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that Champion." Hillary Clinton appeals to the average citizen, as Bill Clinton did from 1993 to 2001. The legacy of her husbands Presidency can be construed as beneficial or detrimental to her campaign. Positively, Bill Clinton in responsible for achieving the largest budget surpluses and debt reduction in American history by 2000 using tax cuts on the wealthiest and spending cuts. Also developing the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement to allow free trade and cut down barriers between neighbouring states, Clinton also demanded welfare reforms as put in place by previous governments. His efforts to regulate gun control, equal rights somewhat reflect the policies of domestic policy, this consensus could give Hillary Clinton an advantage, particularly due to her experience in the White House. But their ideas differed in foreign affairs, claiming "We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere." His approach to intervention has been less decided than Hillary's support for the 2003 Iraq War. This may be negative for her campaign, as this is a pivotal point for a large amount of the electorate. Furthermore, the links between scandals and the Clinton administration has made support of Hillary very much polarized. Alongside claims that American politics has become a Clinton-Bush game, with the possible candidacy of Jeb Bush for the Republican Party.

However, positively, the idea of Hillary Clinton being the US President has been an underlying theme of US politics for nearing on a decade as though her previous bid failed to Obama, it has been regarded by some as only a matter of time before she becomes to power with the Democrats. Furthermore, while a disillusionment of the population can cause a problem for long time political figures, Clinton seems to be a vote that furthers democratic and more modern values as US citizens perspective of politicians and political culture is changing in what some could say is general popular support of the Democrats. It has never been questioned legitimately whether Hillary Clinton could be the US first female President, following the election of Barack Obama.

Ultimately, the campaign in 2016 will be a difficult one for Hillary Clinton, but this could be said of any candidate at this point. She will struggle to convince some voters of her ability in terms of foreign policy and other policy concerns, it is clear that she is more likely than ever to become Democrats candidate and therefore win the election due to uncertainties with the Republican party, the legacy of the previous Clinton administration and the advocating of liberal policy.

What is China's role in a multipolar world, especially in reference to Russia?

The United States, after World War II, became a hegemon and the primary superpower in a uni-polar world. However, in recent decades there has been a challenge to the uni-polar global order in the form of China. Multipolarity means that there are multiple influential powers in the world, rather than uni polarity or bi polarity.

China is growing to be an economic superpower as the rise of the BRICS has meant that economic power is 'transitioning' from West to East according to theorist Joseph Nye.  With China's economy set to overtake the USA's in 2016 as researched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth is seemingly exponential in most of the BRICS. The establishment of a 'new development bank' is a way for the countries promoting multipolarity to build upon infrastructure, fund projects and distribute resources as the efforts of China and Russia strive for a multilateral global order. Multilateral being the "international governance of the many." as defined by Miles Kahler.

Graph showing China's economic growth in comparison to the United
States between 1980 and 2030

In reference to Russia, the China - Russia Constructive Partnership Agreement of 1994 (China - Russia Strategic Agreement of 1996) promoted the belief of both countries not only in terms of a partnership between nations, but the importance of the presence of multipolarity in a world to achieve a fair and just society which was at that time uni-polar - and is still considered to be led by the United States in the current decade.

Overall, China is in a position to overtake the United States and other global actors in terms of hard power such as economy, however, it fails to establish itself in other ways which make it difficult for the nation to become a global superpower rather than a regional one. For instance, it lacks the influence of human rights, prominent allies, acts of diplomacy and the use of 'soft' power or 'smart' power.

Is conflict between Islam and the West inevitable?

The realist view that war is inevitable is difficult to deny when applied to the relationship between Islam and the West. The conflict can be traced back to it's origins in the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. The causes of past conflicts in the Middle East can be surmised as caused by the United Nation's support of a right wing Israel established by the Western World, The West's insatiable thirst for dominance of resources in an opportune area of the world cementing itself in neo-colonialism in other corners of the planet or the responsibilities of developed core countries to help those in less fortunate places in terms of human rights and humanitarian aid.

"Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington
looks at the relationship between the contrasting
civilizations, particularly Islam and the West.

In the four to five centuries, Islam has found itself in disrepair, once being the center of civilization for around 800 years in regards to philosophy, arts, medicine and technology it's a culture shock for the Middle East to find itself dominated and exploited by a unbeatable Western Civilization and left behind by the 16th Century. This is most likely the origin of the Muslim or Arab animosity towards the West.
In the post-Ottoman Empire age beginning after the events of 1918. The drawing borders between states by the victors of World War I has been considered a mistake made by England and France. Prior to World War I, the Middle East operated as a whole, but after the drawing of international borders of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria  between states conflict and domination have been rife in these areas.

A reason for the inevitable conflict between Islam and the West is ideological based, lying in religion. This creates a global culture in which Christianity or Atheism cannot co-exist with Islam without the prevalence of conflict. For centuries, this has been the reason behind wars, executions etc. This inevitability of conflict results in "Holy Wars" - a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. These can be discovered and tracked back to the Crusades. The spread of these two religions has caused a clash that reaches to one another's borders.

Western support of Israel is also an important factor in the fractured relationship between the Middle East and the West. An example of how this can cause conflict is the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Due to the US support of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict, helping by supplying weapons to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) spurring the OPEC countries to slow their oil production in an attempt to raise prices to countries in the West on the side of Israel, despite production only decreasing by 4% this caused panic buying of oil and the skyrocketing of oil prices which in effect caused tensions between the civilizations once again. However, could the oil industry be preventing an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam? despite oil production being the primary reason that the Middle East is able to compete with Western powers economically, it could be considered as a catalyst for treaties - if not peace.

Culture and customs of the two civilizations also do not mix, the values held by the West are not upheld in the Middle East which will never improve while the Middle East is not embracing a more democratic policy focused on human rights, equality (particularly that of women), freedom of both speech and religion etc. However, due to religious differences, this is feared not to be occurring anytime in the near future. Furthermore, there is a lack of willingness, almost a rebellion against the neo-colonialism of the US and other nations as their influence of capitalism and democracy is rejected in reaction to "Westernization" that can be seen in the Far East particularly. However, this is contradictory of the many Islamic or Muslim people which move to UK etc. which despite racial and cultural tensions, for the most part are encouraged to live in harmony with natives in these countries. Not only does this promote the ethnic mixing of varying cultures, it means that we are now more able to understand the more non-radical views and values that go against the stereotype of culture and religion in the Middle East.

The last point leads on to the current situation regarding ISIS and the prevalence of other Jihad extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These reactionary movements in reaction to Western intervention in the Middle East are only gaining momentum and are leading towards a situation which inevitably will end in war. Terrorist organizations, often looking to provoke nations into intervention cause tensions between states. ISIS is an example of how radicalism resorts to war crimes and killing of innocent people which coaxes the West and Islam into war time and time again - examples of this also lie in the war in Afghanistan as Taliban harboring of Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks resulted in an all out war in 2001, which only ended in October 2014. This is also a way in which the civilizations are mixing with negative consequences, with Western countries seeing thousands of their populations disappearing to fight for Islamic State. This shows how conflicting ideologies are propelling us towards conflict not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world including up to 2000 fighters from the UK, 493 from Chechnya, 3000+ from Tunisia, 930 from France and 1500 from Morocco.

The origins and targets of Terrorism map showing the countries where
terrorism effects most, particularly in the Middle East; Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Libya as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan where influence is
spreading.

Exploitation and Neo-Colonialism of the Middle East is seen in the way that the West attempts to side with and exploit countries such as Iraq and Saudi-Arabia due to their vast oil reserves by which OPEC produces oil for 60% of the globe's consumption. This is a reason for NATO and UN interest in aiding the Middle East. 61% of Americans agree at an ever increasing rate, that US intervention in the Middle East was a mistake, and most believe there was no clear plan to the 2003 War in Iraq. Questions have also been raised particularly since the US left Iraq in early 2014 and the emergence of Islamic State on the effectiveness of the US intervention. It has been theorized by realists that the war Iraq was very little about the protection of the Iraqi people and more about the protection of US national interest, primarily being the overseeing of oil production and installing a democratic government which has recently happened in Afghanistan. By intervening, the West keeps up the appearance of an increased relationship in the Middle East. However, as these terrorist organizations previously mentioned grow in power and influence, the need for them to be removed grows stronger alongside the relationships between Western and Middle Eastern countries. The coalition to remove Islamic State has seen a new found diplomacy between rich core countries such as the US, UK and Australia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (previously in political tensions with the West under the civil war led by Al-Assad's corrupt regime) the West supports countries which puts an emphasis on the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Although the coalition with these countries is unstable and the countries themselves do not support Western values, is this not a promising expression of peace?


Ultimately, the belief in who is to blame for the inevitable conflicts fought in the Middle East by the West is shifting from the stereotype of Islamic causes to the issues of US foreign policy. It explains the idea of the United States acting as the "global police" to protect national interest and finite resources which are rich in the Middle East. To answer the question "Is war between Islam and the West inevitable?" liberals would argue that with co-operation and the promotion of a harmony of interests we could end all war and conflict with the Middle East, however, in Western terms, the distance from democracy and equality in the Middle East is still too far to be embraced. In realist terms, they would argue that Islam and the West will always be heading towards a "Clash of Civilizations" and that cannot be changed while the world still maintains the same contrasts in values and culture, believing that any peace is only temporary and treaties or coalitions between these states will be illusionary and not long lasting.

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.