IS AMERICA THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE STATE SYSTEM?

Since the end of the cold war there has been debate about the nature of world order - it has been argued that the emergence of the US as the sole superpower has created a unipolar world order, based on US hegemony.

          But to what extent is the US the most powerful nation in the state system? 

Power is a hard concept to define - it can be understood in terms of capability (the ability of a state to conduct its own affairs without interference from others) or, more commonly, in terms of influence - the ability to influence the behaviour of another state, or power over other states. In what ways does the US have power?

One way is through its military dominance. The USA has a huge military spending budget (the largest in the world, accounting for 42% of global military spending). it has 700 military bases in over 100 countries as well as an 'unchallengeable' lead in high tech weaponry. For these reasons it is thought to be the only power that can intervene militarily in any part of the world ans sustain multiple operations at the same time.

However, military prowess as a means of power may no longer be a relevant characteristic in determining whether a state is powerful globally - the nature of wars are changing from traditional conflict to asymmetrical wars in which a states military is up against a terrorist organisation and the use of guerrilla war tactics - the USA's struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate this. The use of such tactics in recent years has allowed weaker states to prevail over states which are far superior - such as America's effective defeat against north Vietnam in 1975.

The US is also incredibly economically powerful - it accounts for 32% of global spending on research and development, giving it am enormous lead over other countries. While the fast growing Chinese economy is expected to over take the US by 2020, just as Britain remained a global hegemon in the mid- twentieth century despite being overtaken by the US and Germany, the US may be able to remain the most powerful nation state when China overtakes it. However, the flaw of the US economic model were exposed during the financial crisis of 2007-9, threatening the dollar's position as the world's leading currency.

Additionally, America's soft power has been damaged by its association with corporate power and widening inequality, as well as the resentment created by theories of Globalisation as Americanisation. The US's war on terror has also damaged its reputation of being opposed to colonialism and unconcerned by imperialist gains - particularly the Iraq war which was very much illegal in the eyes of the UN. Its human rights record is also under question as details emerge from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

Another way the US could be considered the most powerful nation state in the system is in terms of structural power - it has a disproportionate amount of influence over NGOs as well as NATO. Despite China closing the economic gap, no other state comes close to challenging the US' influence over global economic decision making  - this was reflected in its role in instructing a global response to the financial crisis of 2007-9. However in recent years, the G20 has rivalled America's economic decision making monopoly.

The spread of the US' capitalist ideology after its cold war victory is another way it has exerted power globally - through having its consumerist culture, capitalist ideology and TNCs a part of most countries it could be said to be the most powerful nation in the state system. The Washington Consensus is further support for its global domination and the idea that America is the hegemon in a global state of unipolarity.

For these reasons I would argue that America is the most powerful nation state in the state system, however I think it will be interesting to see how this changes in the near future when China surpasses the US economy and inevitably strives to exert an increased amout of political influence globally as a result.

Is Globalization merely Americanization in disguise?

Globalisation is the emergence of a complex web of inter-connectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us - essentially globalization is the increasing interdependence of countries on one another - or is it?

In our era of globalization, critics have begun to argue that it is not in fact globalization that is occurring all over the world - it is Americanization, or the imposing of american culture, politics, and economics onto the rest of the globe. America has long since been seen as a global hegemon, but to what extent has the American ideology been spread to the rest of the world?

Critics of globalization claim that America is using globalization as an engine of corporate imperialism, trampling on the human rights of less powerful states (claiming to bring prosperity or to create democracy) but always profiteering and plundering in the process.

America, which has the largest military spending budget in the world, has preoccupied itself in recent years with fighting a 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Syria. Astonishingly, the US has managed to invade, occupy or bomb 14 middle eastern counties in the space of 30 years - and at the end of each war it seems america acquires yet more cheap oil to run its economy with.

Through globalization, America is not only able to influence the politics and economy of the world but it also imposes its culture - even advocates of globalization such as Thomas Friedman question this: 'globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears mickey mouse ears, it drinks pepsi and coke; eats big macs'. America has, through cultural globalisation, been criticised for bringing about a global monoculture of consumerist capitalism -  and it is true that trends towards materialism have a markedly western (but more specifically american) character.

But aside from spreading its culture across the globe, (through cultural globalisation), how far is the US a true hegemon? Can it be said that the US is achieving global ideological domination?

The Washington consensus can be used to answer these questions to an extent. This describes the policies favoured by the IMF, World Bank (international institutions based in Washington) and the US Treasury in terms of reconstructing economies in the developing world. The Washington consensus draws on the ideas of Neoliberalism, the essence of it being to 'stabilize, privatize and liberalize'.
More specifically, it favours:
-cutting public spending
-free trade
-privatization
-cutting personal and corporate taxes

These are common conditions imposed on counties which have been bailed out by the world bank after a financial crisis, (a recent example being Greece) implying that America's ideology, or at the very least its preferred policies, are being imposed on developing countries through non governmental organisations. It should also be noted that America is the only country able to veto decisions made by the IMF, demonstrating its disproportionate influence over NGOs.

But how much influence does America really have on the world? Government in each country (as long as it is developed) has the freedom to make its own policies, and state sovereignty remains to an extent - it cannot truly be said that all countries are turning into carbon copies of America - culture remains even in a multi-cultural society. It could be argued that TNCs (which are essentially supranational so cannot be considered American) are a prominent reason for globalisation being compared to Americanisation due to their existence in all countries (McDonalds and Starbucks are a good example).

In conclusion, I would say that America certainly does have a disproportionate influence on global politics (over NGOs especially) as well as state politics (in terms of it invading counties with 'authoritarian' regimes and imposing democracy). However, in terms of cultural globalisation, it may be that a western ideology is spreading, but in everyday life American culture is unique in having escaped its borders - it is not uncommon for us to eat Chinese or Indian takeaway, do yoga or practice Karate or Kung-fu. It would be hard to imagine culture staying within rigid borders in today's world of instantaneous communication (through technology), increased tourism and frequent migration - naturally, as globalisation progresses, we will become more connected with one another. So while America does have a questionable foreign policy and perhaps too much influence over NGOs, its culture has spread no more than other cultures have - it should also be noted that the spread of neoliberal values is not necessarily Americanisation but is better suited to westernisation. In terms of cultural globalisation, the term cannot be interchanged with Americanisation - in economic or political terms this is questionable.

ARE LIBERAL AND REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS STILL APPLICABLE?

                                  REALISM AND LIBERALISM - WHAT ARE THEY?

Realism and Liberalism are the two main political theories which help us to understand international politics. Within each are different schools of thought (classical realism, neorealism, offensive realism and defensive realism are some examples of variation within a theory). 

For realists, politics is about power and self interest, and realists often refer to the theory of  'power politics' to explain what happens in the world of global politics. Realists insist that humans are essentially selfish and that egoism is the defining characteristic of human nature - this means that not only humans, but states as a whole are self seeking since states are run by/ on the behalf of human beings . Realists also claim that the international system operates in a state of anarchy in that there is no authority higher than the state - realists believe that a global government can never be established. This means that global politics operates in a state of nature and therefore is unstable. 

Liberals, by comparison, are relatively optimistic. They believe in balanced harmony amongst competing interests  and while they acknowledge that humans and states are inherently self seeking, they claim a natural equilibrium asserts itself. Liberals also argue that non governmental organisations facilitate co operation between states and keep the peace internationally - if this was the case however, then the EU would have succeeded recently in encouraging countries like the UK to take on a fair amount of refugees, most of whom are fleeing war torn Syria.

                                CAN THIS BE APPLIED TO THE MIGRANT CRISIS?
 Unfortunately Liberal theory cannot be applied here as many countries in the EU are refusing to take their fair share of refugees or are refusing to allow any 'migrants' into their country at all. Realist theory is more relevant here, as the self interested nature of states (state egoism) and humans has been revealed. It would not be in the national interest for most states to take on refugees as they would have to provide for them in terms of housing, food and education - this is why countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic have refused to take the proposed numbers of migrants while Germany has taken a large number of refugees - its population is dwindling and migrants are useful for expanding its workforce.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the richest country in the world) and other gulf countries have also refused to take a single migrant, although they are not part of the EU. This supports the realist notion that states are self interested and undermines Liberal theorists assertion that NGOs such as the EU promote peace and harmony - global governance does not appear to be working.

Worryingly, Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban cites religion as his main concern regarding refugees - he fears that Muslim refugees will make it even harder to 'keep Europe Christian'.

To conclude, I think that realist theory can still be loosely applied to international politics in that international politics appears to be state centric (and these states are strictly self seeking) and it does not appear that global governance can or will be effective in the near future. Ideally the Liberal view of international politics would show the EU being successful in relocating Syrian refugees to safer countries but currently this is not the case  - the realist theory of power politics has prevailed with most able countries such as the UK, Hungary and Qatar refusing to take on a fair amount of refugees and getting away with doing so, while smaller countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on a huge amount of refugees regardless of whether they can afford to do so.  

THE IMPORTANCE OF PALESTINE WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY

                                               WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?
Sovereignty can be defined as the principle of absolute and unlimited power; the absence of a higher authority in either domestic or external affairs.
The concept of sovereignty is very closely related to the concept of statehood in that sovereignty is a defining characteristic of a state - states are states because they are able to exercise sovereign jurisdiction within their defined borders.

                                                WHY IS PALESTINE INVOLVED?
In recent years, Palestine has tried to attain statehood -  in September 2011 a formal request for Palestine's statehood was submitted to the United Nations. In November 2012 the general assembly of the UN voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestine as a 'non member observer state' meaning Palestine had access to other UN bodies such as the international criminal court. When Israel was established as a state in 1948, the majority of Arab Palestinians became refugees  - this problem was worsened by the six day war in 1967 in which Sinai, the Gaza strip, the West Bank and Golan Heights were occupied by Israel. The first face to face meeting between the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) and the government of Israel occurred in 1993 and lay the groundwork for the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1996 which assumed governmental authority (but not sovereignty) for the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

               SO WHY IS PALESTINE IMPORTANT WHEN DEBATING SOVEREIGNTY?
While Israel is widely recognised as a state (it was created after the second world war when Jewish people wanted a place to live, out of land taken from the Ottoman empire), Palestine's statehood is more questionable - although many of the UN members recognise it as a state, not all of them do. In addition to this it does not really meet the requirements of a state as defined by the Montevideo convention  - its defined territory is questionable and it does not necessarily have a good government (Hamas is seen by some as a terrorist organisation). State Sovereignty is when a state enjoys sovereignty in its defined border, and so Palestine cannot have state sovereignty as its territory is changing regularly and it is barely recognised as a state. On the other hand, Israel is recognised as a state but it arguably does not have state sovereignty within its own borders as part of its territory is in question and it has given some authority over decision making in these areas (the Gaza strip and the West Bank) to Palestine.

States and State Systems

How did the state system emerge? 

The peace of Westphalia (1648) established that sovereignty was the distinguishing feature of the state system. It brought an end to the 30 years war (1618-48) and was based on two principles:
1. States enjoy sovereign jurisdiction (independent control over what happens in their own territory). 
2. The states are all legally equal and relations between them are structured by the acceptance of sovereign independence. 

   How can a state be identified?

A state, as defined by the Montevideo convention on the rights and duties of states in 1933, has 4 qualities:
1. A defined territory 
2. A permanent population
3.An effective government
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states

The state is no longer the only significant actor on the world stage - TNC's, NGO's and other organisations such as terrorist groups and pressure groups are also able to shape global politics.

The Billiard Ball Model of world politics

In this model (adopted by realist theorists) the states are billiard balls that collide with one another. Sovereignty is the hard impenetrable outer shell of the ball which enables it to withstand the impact of the collision. Not all balls are the same size, which is why international politics gives attention to the interests and behaviour of 'great powers'. This model has come under pressure due to growing interdependence.

 The Cobweb Model of world politics

More recently states have been forced to work together in tackling tasks such as global warming, pandemic diseases, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Keohane and Nye state that such a web of relationships has created a condition of 'complex interdependence', in which state are forced to co-operate. However, the Middle East is an example of how the Billiard Ball model and the Cobweb model are not exact; interdependence varies across the world. 

 The State Centric view

This is an approach to global politics which takes the state to be the key actor in the domestic realm and on the world stage. 

Great Powers

A great power is a state seen to be amongst the most powerful in the hierarchal system - there are a number of criteria a state must meet before it is considered a great power: 

1. Should have the 1st rank of military prowess as well as the capacity to maintain their own security and the ability to influence others.

2. Must be economically powerful

3. Having global, not merely regional, spheres of influence

4. Adopt a forward foreign policy which has an impact on international affairs.