This House believes the United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon*

As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal international economic order, and has been able to shape other states’ preferences in a manner that has awarded sufficient benefits to these states while ensuring the dominance of the US.[1] This has been what John Ikenberry terms America’s “liberal grand strategy,”* which has enabled the US to construct a relatively benign and highly institutionalized multilateral system based on open markets, free trade, and the provision of ‘public goods’, such as collective security and an open international trading regime.[2] This has allowed other countries to prosper economically and also in terms of their security; the rebuilding and success of Japan and Germany provides important examples of this.

[1] Cox, Robert. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175.,

Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in R.O. Keohane (ed.) NeoRealism and its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)

Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.[2] Ikenberry, John G. (2002), ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002.

*liberal grand strategy is a terminology that describes the USA’s long term policy goal- to promote its system to other countries.

While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural adjustment programmes” imposed on them by the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rather than helping poorer nations,  the West (led by America) has often practiced selective freed trade, whereby the markets of the developing world were opened up to foreign companies as the United States and its Western allies subsidized and provided unfair advantages to sectors of their own economies that were not as globally competitive, such as farming. This crippled the agricultural industries of many developing countries and made them dependent on importing food, directly contributing to many recent food crises. What is more, the US and its allies have manipulatively achieved this through nominally “multilateral” and “fair” institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[3] Many countries have not received the benefits of this so-called “benign” open, liberal order.   

[3] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London),

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton). 

An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]

[4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156

Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.

[5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/worldwide-approval-leadership-tops-major-powers.aspx, Accessed 12^th May 2011.

The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]

[6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.

[7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004.

America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example climate change, terrorism, epidemics, oil crises, economic recessions, the illegal drugs trade, and nuclear proliferation) it is in its interests to promote policies that are broadly globally beneficial. The US is able to utilize its considerable economic and diplomatic clout to convince its allies to back important multilateral international initiatives. One example of this was George W. Bush’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The United States has also used its power to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide collective security and considerable aid to various nations, as well as leading the international effort to prevent failed or weak states (such as Somalia and Yemen) falling into the hands of terrorists.

Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the country to disasters such as the Iraq war and undemocratically vetoing internationally-backed initiatives in the UN Security Council, such as those critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rather than showing leadership, the US has also obstructed international efforts to tackle climate change, as seen by George W. Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and President Obama’s signing of the deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord.[8]. Many instances have also shown America’s willingness to pursue its own commercial interests at the expense of vital international issues. One example of this was George W. Bush’s protectionism in protecting the “intellectual property rights” and the high price of drugs (including Anti-AIDS drugs) of US pharmaceuticals, which damaged the international fight against AIDS.

Furthermore with regards to international terrorism, the UNSC worked through the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) which had a minor US presence and was set up to tackle terrorism from the root causes rather than using military might. 

[8] On the Copenhagen Accord, see The Independent, ‘Obama’s climate accord fails the test’, 19 December, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/obamas-climate-accord-fails-the-test-1845090.html, Accessed 13^th May, 2011.

[9] Mann, Michael (2003), Incoherent Empire, (London), pp. 58-59.

Mokhiber, Russell and Robert Weissman (2003), ‘The Two Faces of Bush in Africa’, Common Dreams, July 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0711-14.htm, Accessed 14^th May 2011.

United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/

Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11]

[10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003)

[11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46.

On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America’s support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other ‘humanitarian interventions’ have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations.

As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal international economic order, and has been able to shape other states’ preferences in a manner that has awarded sufficient benefits to these states while ensuring the dominance of the US.[1] This has been what John Ikenberry terms America’s “liberal grand strategy,”* which has enabled the US to construct a relatively benign and highly institutionalized multilateral system based on open markets, free trade, and the provision of ‘public goods’, such as collective security and an open international trading regime.[2] This has allowed other countries to prosper economically and also in terms of their security; the rebuilding and success of Japan and Germany provides important examples of this.

[1] Cox, Robert. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175.,

Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in R.O. Keohane (ed.) NeoRealism and its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)

Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.[2] Ikenberry, John G. (2002), ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002.

*liberal grand strategy is a terminology that describes the USA’s long term policy goal- to promote its system to other countries.

While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural adjustment programmes” imposed on them by the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rather than helping poorer nations,  the West (led by America) has often practiced selective freed trade, whereby the markets of the developing world were opened up to foreign companies as the United States and its Western allies subsidized and provided unfair advantages to sectors of their own economies that were not as globally competitive, such as farming. This crippled the agricultural industries of many developing countries and made them dependent on importing food, directly contributing to many recent food crises. What is more, the US and its allies have manipulatively achieved this through nominally “multilateral” and “fair” institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[3] Many countries have not received the benefits of this so-called “benign” open, liberal order.   

[3] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London),

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton). 

An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]

[4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156

Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.

[5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/worldwide-approval-leadership-tops-major-powers.aspx, Accessed 12^th May 2011.

The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]

[6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.

[7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004.

America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example climate change, terrorism, epidemics, oil crises, economic recessions, the illegal drugs trade, and nuclear proliferation) it is in its interests to promote policies that are broadly globally beneficial. The US is able to utilize its considerable economic and diplomatic clout to convince its allies to back important multilateral international initiatives. One example of this was George W. Bush’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The United States has also used its power to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide collective security and considerable aid to various nations, as well as leading the international effort to prevent failed or weak states (such as Somalia and Yemen) falling into the hands of terrorists.

Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the country to disasters such as the Iraq war and undemocratically vetoing internationally-backed initiatives in the UN Security Council, such as those critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rather than showing leadership, the US has also obstructed international efforts to tackle climate change, as seen by George W. Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and President Obama’s signing of the deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord.[8]. Many instances have also shown America’s willingness to pursue its own commercial interests at the expense of vital international issues. One example of this was George W. Bush’s protectionism in protecting the “intellectual property rights” and the high price of drugs (including Anti-AIDS drugs) of US pharmaceuticals, which damaged the international fight against AIDS.

Furthermore with regards to international terrorism, the UNSC worked through the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) which had a minor US presence and was set up to tackle terrorism from the root causes rather than using military might. 

[8] On the Copenhagen Accord, see The Independent, ‘Obama’s climate accord fails the test’, 19 December, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/obamas-climate-accord-fails-the-test-1845090.html, Accessed 13^th May, 2011.

[9] Mann, Michael (2003), Incoherent Empire, (London), pp. 58-59.

Mokhiber, Russell and Robert Weissman (2003), ‘The Two Faces of Bush in Africa’, Common Dreams, July 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0711-14.htm, Accessed 14^th May 2011.

United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/

Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11]

[10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003)

[11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46.

On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America’s support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other ‘humanitarian interventions’ have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations.

While the US may not have formal colonies like the empires of the past, it is still able to pursue imperialism through its massive military juggernaut and control of the world’s financial institutions. America possesses what Chalmers Johnson called an “empire of military bases,” which are located in dozens of countries across the world and provide the US with, as Jonathan Freedland puts it, ‘the same global muscle it would enjoy if it ruled those countries directly.’[16] This coupled with its entrenched military-industrial complex allows the US to contain rivals, maintain strategic control of resources (particularly oil), and to militarily intervene in countries that threaten its imperial “interests.” The US has also shaped and structured the international political economy in a way that has given it effective control of the global institutions which ensure it remains the pre-eminent power. This is not indicative of a ‘benign’ hegemon, but a modern Rome.[17]

[16] Freedland,  Jonathan (2002). “Rome, AD... Rome, DC?”, The Guardian, September 18, 2002. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment, Accessed 16^th May, 2011.

[17] Wade, Robert (2002), “The American Empire,” The Guardian, 5^th January, 2002.

US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002 demonstrated. While the US professes support for democratic forces in the Arab world, it has also continued to give vital assistance to the strategically-important dictatorships of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been responsible for grave human rights abuses in response to recent peaceful protests[14].The US also continues to support states such as Israel which violate international law, and also routinely flouts international law itself—as seen by wars such as Iraq, the treatment of terrorist suspects and breaches of the Geneva convention [15], the undermining of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the violation of countries’ sovereignty with ‘drone’ attacks. Clinical realpolitik, and not the pursuit of democracy and human rights, determines the use of US power.

[14] Goodman, Amy (2011), ‘Barack Obama must speak out on Bahrain bloodshed’, The Guardian: Comment is Free, April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/13/barack-obama-bahrain-bloodshed, Accessed 14^th May 2011.The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire.

[15] Chatham House, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion’. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11390_il270308.pdf, Accessed 15^th May 2011.

As Samuel P. Huntington has written, the US suffers from “benign hegemon syndrome.”[19] Its self-perception as an exceptional, virtuous superpower is at odds with the violent history of its foreign policy. Since the end of World War II, it has sought to overthrow over forty governments, and to destroy numerous populist-nationalist movements.[20] Its interventions in other countries have substantially increased following the end of the Cold War and the absence of a rival power balancing against it; one study has shown a 60% increase with an average of two interventions per year.[21]  In addition, the US often interferes in the internal affairs of other countries; including through perverting elections, applying sanctions to change behaviour or influence domestic politics, propping up opposition forces, and even trying to assassinate foreign leaders (for example, Fidel Castro and more recently, arguably, Colonel Gaddafi). Therefore, while it may see itself as a benign hegemon, many see America as a rogue superpower. 

[19] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999. http://raider.mountunion.edu/~grossmmo/PS%20270/articles/lonely%20superpower.pdf, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

[20] Blum, William (2002). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (London).

[21] In Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), pp. 67-68.

While the US does have a long history of intervening in various countries across the globe, this has mostly been in response to genuine threats to national security, international peace, and basic human rights in line with the UN Charter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new global discourse has emerged where state sovereignty is no longer regarded as absolute in instances where states endanger international peace and commit human rights abuses.[22] Post-Cold War US interventions (Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have largely followed this discourse. Thus, rather than malignly intervening in other countries, the US has relatively benignly sought to apply pressure on violent and dictatorial regimes, with international law and the will of the international community being central to many of the actions taken. The carefully undertaken Libyan intervention demonstrates this.

[22] Annan, Kofi (1999), ‘Two concepts of sovereignty’, The Economist, 18^th September 1999. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/kaecon.html, Accessed 16^th May, 2011.

A commitment to American ‘exceptionalism’ has led US policymakers to view the United States as the political and cultural centre of the world. Consequently, they expect others to follow their own standards on political, economic and cultural issues, with free and open markets, liberal democratic structures, and individualistic cultural norms serving as models for other countries to follow. This is not simply propaganda; the US has used considerable resources  to influence other nations in this respect, including military interventions, coercive austerity measures through the IMF/World Bank/WTO, economic sanctions, and the categorization of certain countries as “rogue states” for not following American standards.[23] American corporations have also been responsible for a form of cultural imperialism by exporting consumerist and materialistic ways of life around the world, often threatening indigenous cultures. In some instances this has caused what Samuel P. Huntington calls a ‘clash of civilizations,’[24] leading other cultures to respond violently to the introduction of American cultural exports, as is the case in some conservative Muslim societies and in India, where a major political party (BJP) actively orchestrates opposition to Western ideals of sexual permissiveness and individualism.

[23] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999. http://raider.mountunion.edu/~grossmmo/PS%20270/articles/lonely%20superpower.pdf, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

[24] Huntington, Samuel P. (1993), ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, September 1993. http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/d_huntington.html, Accessed 17^th May 2001.

This argument misleadingly presents the nature of US influence as essentially coercive. In fact, it is America’s “soft power”—or the ability to get what it wants through the attractiveness of its culture and political institutions—that has been instrumental in spreading American values.[25] People across the globe—from Singapore, South Korea, and Japan to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—are fascinated by and have emulated what John Agnew terms America’s “Market-Place society,” defined by mass consumerism, the influx of American cultural products and the displacement of traditional social standards.[26] In this context, arguments of “cultural imperialism” exaggerate the level of control the US has over the process, as well as the extent to which conflicts arise.[27] The desirability of American culture and institutions in the eyes of many of the world’s people ensures that soft, and not hard, power has universalized American values.  

[25] Nye, Joseph (2004), “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (2004), pp. 255-270.

Nye,  Joseph (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2004)

[26] Agnew, John (2005). Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power (Philadelphia)

[27] Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), p. 130.

Rather than working through international institutions and gaining the consent of the international community as a ‘benign’ hegemon would be expected to do, the United States far too often undermines multilateralism and exercises its power unilaterally. President Clinton’s military interventions during the 1990s, George W. Bush’s unilateral launching of the Iraq War, and President Obama’s use of covert drone attacks illustrate this propensity to shun multilateralism in favour of the “imperial logic” of unilateralism.[28] Indeed, since the end of the Cold War the United Nations has frequently been ignored or devalued as an institution by America. Most American policymakers are what Robert Kagan refers to as “instrumental multilateralists.” They engage with multilateral institutions for pragmatic reasons, but act unilaterally when it serves the interests of the United States. This is in contrast to many European leaders, who Kagan describes as “principled multilateralists” that are interested in multilateralism as a cornerstone of world order.[29]

[28] Ikenberry, John G. (2003), ‘Is American Multilateralism in Decline?’, Perspective on Politics, Vol. 1. http://www.princeton.edu/~gji3/Decline.pdf, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

[29] Kagan, Robert (2002), ‘Multilateralism, American Style’, The Washington Post, September 2002. http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-091302.htm, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

It is true that the US sometimes resorts to unilateral action to advance its national security interests. However, its commitment to multilateralism is more than just instrumental and cynically selective. Even George W. Bush’s unilateralism—criticized as imperialist by even mainstream analysts—was restricted to certain issues, such as arms control, nonproliferation, and the use of force against certain threatening states. Unilateral military action was only used against Iraq, and even other “rogue” states (specifically Iran and North Korea) were dealt with through diplomatic and multilateral channels.[30] As John Ikenberry argues, the “foundational” multilateralism—as seen in the liberal, open international order the US built following World War II—is still a core part of US foreign policy.[31] Moreover, George Bush Sr.’s painstaking coalition building for the first Gulf War and more recently President Obama’s commitment to working through the UN Security Council for the intervention in Libya demonstrates America’s preference for consensus-based international action. 

[30] Robbins, Carla Anne (2007). “Bush Foreign Policy: Grand Vision and its Application” in Fortier, John C. and Ornstein, Norman J. (eds.), Second-Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2007), pp. 89-108.

[31] Ikenberry, John G. (2003), ‘Is American Multilateralism in Decline?’, Perspective on Politics, Vol. 1. http://www.princeton.edu/~gji3/Decline.pdf, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

While Western Europe and Japan may have been awarded a privileged position in the international order the US constructed following the end of World War II, developing countries were incorporated as “subordinate elements in the global capitalist system.”[32] The global South has in effect been controlled and exploited through nominally multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, which are designed in a way that provides wealthy countries with de facto control. The United States has also set up a “hub and spoke” system to deal with subordinate states, which is built around bilateralism, client states, ‘special relationships’, and patronage-oriented foreign policy, which serves to translate America’s power advantage into concessions from other states.[33] When subordinate states have failed to comply, they have often faced US intervention—from Guatemala, to Iran, to Chile, to Iraq. Through this system of unequal relationships the US has gained access to markets for its corporations, and enjoyed geopolitical and political control of key strategic areas. Developing countries on the other hand have often faced economic stagnation, food crises, and various attacks on their sovereignty.

[32] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London), pp. 153.

[33] For an elaboration of how a “hub and spokes” system works, see Ikenberry, John G. (2004), “Liberalism and empire: logics of order in the American unipolar age”, Review of International Studies, 30, pp. 609-630

It is a hyperbole to suggest that American-led globalization and the spread of free and open markets has been “imposed” on developing countries; globalisation has been a far more impersonal and voluntary process. Moreover, rather than being exploited, the spread of free trade and open markets has benefited developing countries; one only needs to see the success of China, and India after 1991 when it embraced neoliberal reforms to find evidence of this. More generally too, World Bank reports have suggested that poorer countries that are “more globalized” have grown faster than even developed countries, while those that are “less globalized” have seen their GDPs drop.[34] The purportedly “hub and spoke” system the US has employed has also benefited many countries, which have received security guarantees from America, and can often count on the US to help tackle regional threats and ensure stability. Middle Eastern states that cooperate with the US to tackle terrorism and a resurgent and nuclear Iran provide examples of this.

[34] Meredith, Robyn and Suzanne Hoppough (2007), ‘Why Globalization is Good’, Forbes, March, 2007. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/064.html, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.

Schonwald, Josh (2002), ‘Johnson, economic development expert, discusses globalization and its benefits,’ The University of Chicago Chronicle, February 21, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 10. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020221/globalization.shtml, Accessed 17^th May, 2011.