 |
Can the United States Be Balanced? If So, How?
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
4
likely to challenge America’s dominant position, and then consider the different strategies they can employ. WHEN WILL OTHER STATES CHALLENGE US DOMINANCE?
Given the preponderance of power in America’s favor, why would any state risk
courting the direct opposition of the world’s most powerful country? The obvious answer, of course, is when there are profound conflicts of interest between the United States and some other country, conflicts so fundamental that appeasement or accommodation is impossible. But even when serious conflicts are present, other states have to consider whether defying Washington’s wishes is still prudent. Whether resistance makes sense will depend on the following conditions. How Big is the Disagreement?
States (or non-state actors) are more likely to reject accommodation and oppose
U.S. dominance when there are fundamental conflicts between their foreign policy goals and those of the United States. During the Cold War, for example, the long rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union was partly based on the balance of power—that is, on the fact that they were two most powerful states in the system—but also on unbridgeable differences in ideology. The American and Soviet visions of an ideal social order were fundamentally at odds, which made it hard to imagine either one voluntarily aligning with the other.
In the post Cold War world, states that have chosen to openly defy the United
States have generally been whose foreign policy objectives clashed openly and sharply with U.S. preferences. The most obvious examples were the members of the Bush administration’s “axis of evil”—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—but several others (e.g., Serbia, Syria, Libya, etc.) have defied US pressure as well. Although there were important differences among these regimes, each was committed to foreign policy objectives opposed by the United States and several of them were also seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction, a goal that U.S. leaders have emphatically opposed.
Finally, some states will seek to oppose the United States on particular issues, or
will merely be looking for ways to keep U.S. power somewhat in check. Thus, Japan and South Korea have encouraged the United States to act with restraint in dealing with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and France, Russia, China, and several others have openly opposed the Bush administration’s emphasis on preemption and especially its decision to launch a preventive war against Iraq. States such as these do not oppose the United States on many (or even most) global issues, but they are clearly willing to defy Washington on occasion and to look for ways to give their opposition greater weight. Will the U.S. Find Out?
States will be more inclined to oppose U.S. dominance (or to defy U.S. pressures)
when they have reason to believe they can get away with it. Their ability to do so depends in part on whether the United States is likely to detect what they are up to. Governments cannot punish criminals if they are either unaware of the crime or do not
|
| |
| |
|
|
4
likely to challenge America’s dominant position, and then consider the different
strategies they can employ.
WHEN WILL OTHER STATES CHALLENGE US DOMINANCE?
Given the preponderance of power in America’s favor, why would any state risk
courting the direct opposition of the world’s most powerful country? The obvious
answer, of course, is when there are profound conflicts of interest between the United
States and some other country, conflicts so fundamental that appeasement or
accommodation is impossible. But even when serious conflicts are present, other states
have to consider whether defying Washington’s wishes is still prudent. Whether
resistance makes sense will depend on the following conditions.
How Big is the Disagreement?
States (or non-state actors) are more likely to reject accommodation and oppose
U.S. dominance when there are fundamental conflicts between their foreign policy goals
and those of the United States. During the Cold War, for example, the long rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union was partly based on the balance of
power—that is, on the fact that they were two most powerful states in the system—but
also on unbridgeable differences in ideology. The American and Soviet visions of an
ideal social order were fundamentally at odds, which made it hard to imagine either one
voluntarily aligning with the other.
In the post Cold War world, states that have chosen to openly defy the United
States have generally been whose foreign policy objectives clashed openly and sharply
with U.S. preferences. The most obvious examples were the members of the Bush
administration’s “axis of evil”—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—but several others (e.g.,
Serbia, Syria, Libya, etc.) have defied US pressure as well. Although there were
important differences among these regimes, each was committed to foreign policy
objectives opposed by the United States and several of them were also seeking to obtain
weapons of mass destruction, a goal that U.S. leaders have emphatically opposed.
Finally, some states will seek to oppose the United States on particular issues, or
will merely be looking for ways to keep U.S. power somewhat in check. Thus, Japan and
South Korea have encouraged the United States to act with restraint in dealing with North
Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and France, Russia, China, and several others have openly
opposed the Bush administration’s emphasis on preemption and especially its decision to
launch a preventive war against Iraq. States such as these do not oppose the United
States on many (or even most) global issues, but they are clearly willing to defy
Washington on occasion and to look for ways to give their opposition greater weight.
Will the U.S. Find Out?
States will be more inclined to oppose U.S. dominance (or to defy U.S. pressures)
when they have reason to believe they can get away with it. Their ability to do so
depends in part on whether the United States is likely to detect what they are up to.
Governments cannot punish criminals if they are either unaware of the crime or do not
|
|
 Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
