Is America the most powerful nation in the state system?

If you asked your average American today if the US was still the supreme power they'd probably be offended you would even consider the possibility it wasn't. I mean this guy clearly thinks America is the greatest country on earth,

(And yes, those are real tattoos)

but is that still the case today?  Is America still the dominant hyperpower operating in a unipolar world, or have we moved towards a more multipolar system?

To begin with, the end of the Cold War certainly enabled America rise as the global hegemon; a hyperpower that dominated world affairs in a unipolar world. For example it boosted economic globalisation as opportunities arose for western/US capitalist enterprises. The IMF were also able to encourage post-communist countries to transition to a more laissez faire system, and the US system of liberal-democratic governance was adopted by many of these countries. 

Perhaps the strongest argument for the US as a hyperpower is it's military dominance on the international stage. In 2011 the US accounted for nearly half the world's military spending- 42%! That's five times as much as the second biggest military spender- China. The US is unchallenged in it's lead of high tech weaponry and air power and has around 700 military bases in over 100 countries. Many see the US as the sole power that can sustain multiple operations and intervene in any part of the world. However, is military power still a secure basis for global hegemony? While America can certainly inflict military destruction it doesn't always achieve it's political aims. There are countless examples of this such as the forced withdrawal of America from Lebanon in 1984 and Somalia in 1993, and of course the difficulty in fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight how terrorist/guerrilla tactics can stop a supposedly advanced power like America. 

In terms of the world economy the US accounts for around 32% of the world's spending on research and development meaning it has an unrivaled technological lead on the international stage and has high productivity levels. Yet, while it is still the world's largest economy it's rivals -most notably China and India- have been growing much more quickly than the US in recent decades. In fact, the Chinese economy is predicted to outstrip the US by perhaps as early as 2020.

 Furthermore, the global financial crisis (2007-2009) can be seen to have weakened the US by exposing the flaws the US economic model and leading people to question the dollar as the world's leading currency. However, many point out that China is still a long way off from overtaking the US in the economic sectors, regardless of the fact that China along with India have set up their own lending and developing institutions. If the British Empire could remain a global hegemon till the mid 20th century- even after it was surpassed by the US and Germany- surely America could still remain the dominant hyperpower even if it lacks the largest economy? 

America's increasing population is also a vital factor in it's role as a supreme power, expecting to reach 439 million by 2050 with an influx of Hispanics and Asians helping to underpin it's economic performance. Additionally, while you might think of America as the stereotypical redneck country, a lot of the population are highly educated and skilled in areas like science and technology. Up to 7 universities feature in the world's top 10 while an Asian university has yet to enter the top 20. 

When weighing up America's position in global politics we must be specific on the type of power America has and how influential it is. For example, for the most part America's 'hard' power doesn't appear to be rapidly in decline. However, in terms of it's 'soft' power, America's reputation has been damaged by it's association with corporatism and the ever widening global inequality. Also, America is often blamed for causing resentment through a clash of civilizations (i.e Americanisation triggering conflict between the West and Islam). Furthermore, the moral authority of the US has come under pressure due to the 'war on terror' particularly the Iraq war and the treatment of those imprisoned at Gantanamo and Abu Gharib. 

In terms of structural power, many see the US as unrivaled. The US undoubtedly exerts disprotionate influence over areas of economic governance (e.g. it's managed to maintain it's veto in the IMF despite protest from Europe) and of course it has huge influence over NATO. While the influence of developing countries is on the rise and economies continue to emerge, no one country is close to taking over the US's role in global decision making. While the global financial crisis may have highlighted faults within the US economic model, it also showed how the US played the key role in the global response to the crisis. 

However, in a world in which (I would personally argue) diplomacy seems to be of increasing significance as opposed to military power, the US is very much in decline.  The pressure it is able to exert on countries is limited for example it relies on Chinese diplomacy to exert influence over North Korea; EU diplomacy is used to influence Iran and it's capacity to influence Israel is also limited (e.g. Obama pretty much giving up on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)
 countries such as China and Russia seem immune to US diplomacy- the US has had no influence over the Tibetan problem and one only has to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria to see the US's limited influence over Russia. There are fears that there could be an accidental clash between the US and Russia as they carry out separate bombing campaigns. Furthermore, the increasing significance of the G-20 heralds a shift in global politics in that it represents a new institutional world order that better reflects economic realities thereby enjoying greater global legitimacy than the IMF and World Bank have in concentrating global decision making in the hands of a few states, mainly America. 

♫ Oh say can you see, By the dawn's early light, America is beginning, To take over the world ♫

Ok so perhaps World Domination is a bit far fetched but there is an element of truth in it. While we may see globalization as sparking worldwide growth and prosperity, distributing power across the globe, spreading democracy (and therefore according to the democratic peace thesis: spreading peace), critics of globalization argue there is a distinct American homogenization in terms of global politics, economics, and culture. Having said that, there are also those who argue that the USA as a global hegemon is in decline. 

Firstly, what exactly is globalization? Globalization is the political, economic, and cultural process of increased interconnectedness. Our lives are increasingly shaped by events that happen outside our nation state and the territorial borders between said states are becoming less significant. That being said, has the state that takes the leading role in shaping the structure of globalization exerted it's own socio-economic ideology over the system, and in doing so, the rest of the world? 

In terms of culture it seems as though the world is being 'flattered out'. By eating the same food, watching the same TV shows, cultural diversity is being eroded and replaced by the rise of supraterritoriality. If we view cultural globalization as a top-down process it is in many ways a form of imperialism as stronger states can exert dominance over weaker states. Many of us would see the USA as the current dominant hegemon which is supported by the rise of consumer capitalism across the globe. Brands such as coca cola have come to dominate the global economic market, show casing the spread of materialist values which have a distinct American character. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the brands (such as Mcdonalds with restaurants in 119 countries) that are dominating the global market and culture originate in America highlight the fact that the advancing system of consumer capitalism is a particular US model of capitalism. Having said that, other forms of culture
have certainly become globalized, for example Japanese popular culture (anime, music, etc.) is increasingly popular in western countries like the US and UK. 

However, the implications of America's association with corporate power and the global inequality that resulted from the current capitalist system have damaged it's 'soft' power on the international stage. It's reputation as a political hegemon and it's moral authority has certainly been damaged since the Iraq War and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detention camp. Furthermore, it's diplomatic influence has been weakened, the pressure it is able to exert on countries is limited for example countries such as China and Russia seem immune to US diplomacy- one only has to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria. There are fears that there could be an accidental clash between the US and Russia as they carry out separate bombing campaigns, although Russia has recently agreed to resume talks on air safety with the US.  

The strongest argument for globalization to be merely Americanisation is perhaps America's  control over institutions of global economic governance. No country has as much influence as America over global economic decision making, despite the rise of developing economies. For example, in the IMF only one country has the power to veto, which, of course, is America thereby giving it enormous influence over shaping polices. Many would argue that economic institutes (e.g. the IMF, World Bank, etc.) have outpaced the importance of political institutes (such as the UN) meaning that if the US is unrivaled in it's position over global economics then surely globalization is merely Americanization in disguise? Having said that, the US has seen relative economic decline. While it remains the largest economy, countries such as China and India have been growing more quickly- China is predicted to over take the US economy within a decade. Furthermore, globalization has also seen China and India set up their own lending and developing institutions thereby challenging the concept of Americanization.

Some economists such Joseph E. Stiglitz would argue that the failings of the Iraq war highlight the fact that the US can't solve any problem, even with all it's economic power. Furthermore, the US's military power has become in many ways redundant. While the US can certainly achieve destruction, it doesn't always achieve it's political gains, e.g. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was these difficulties that forced the Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral approach to the 'war of terror'. Following Bush, President Obama has certainly adopted a more cooperative tone, for example acknowledging in 2009 that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another". Having said that, I would personally argue this shift in approach is merely style rather than substance. All in all though, the US has recognized the limit of it's hard power and realized there's going to have to be more multilateralism and cooperation in order to solve the problems that globalization brings. Therefore if America cannot solve global issues on it's own, despite having access to resources that it does, then perhaps it was never a global hegemon to begin with and 'Americanization' is merely a myth? 


Bibliography/Further reading

• BBC Radio 4 'Globalization'
• Is Globalization Americanization?
• Americanization or Globalization?
• China's GDP is expected to surpass the US' in 11 years