It is an accepted convention
in international relations that there is no central authority that is above
sovereign states—at least formally. Hegemonic stability theory holds that a
superpower state that has the capacity, will and legitimacy can and will act as
the global leader for other states to follow, creating a semblance of a world government. Undoubtedly, the United States is today’s
global hegemon. Although challenged, it is still the leading military, economic
and ideological power. Many observers, however, argue that the hegemonic
position of the United States is on a decline; focusing on both domestic and
international failures of the United States while taking notice of the rise of
the possible replacement in China and Russia. I argue that while U.S. hegemony
is indeed on decline, it is in no way reasonably threatened to be replaced
simply because no other state has risen to the occasion to legitimately
challenge it and more crucially, the rest of the world has not conferred
legitimacy upon any viable replacement.
Taking over from Britain after
the country’s massive losses in World War II, the United States stood
unchallenged as the global hegemon for decades. It had the capacity, being the
largest economy in the world in terms of market exchange rates. It possessed
the will, displayed through leading peace efforts, economic conventions and
multilateral institutions worldwide. It controlled legitimacy, no other state
in the world could be perceived as a wanted replacement for the U.S; viable,
maybe, but not wanted. However, domestic and international failures is eroding
its hegemonic position. The U.S. economic decline now places its economy second
to China in terms of purchasing power parity. The will of the United States
increasingly becomes invisible, refusing to act on major global security issues
like the invasion in Ukraine. Its legitimacy as well is weakening with its
failed democratization projects and the unsuccessful ‘war on terror.’
The rising global powers smell
blood. Russia is increasingly pursuing more aggressive foreign policy, hoping
to make its mark on global politics. China continues to grow economically and
improve its military capacity. But the world has seen that Russia cannot keep
up with the U.S. in economic terms with its dependence on oil; and China who
can, simply is not globally aggressive in foreign policy, albeit it is
regionally. However, even if these two states combine both their capacity and
will, it will be very difficult to replace the U.S. as the global hegemon—their
lack of legitimacy kills any Chinese or Russian hegemonic ambition.
Legitimacy is a constructed
notion and the U.S. expertly crafted and marked its legitimacy in every
strategic sphere possible. Culturally, American pop culture is unrivaled and
has continuously depicted the U.S. as the good guy and every challenger as the
bad guy. The media is critical of a U.S.-led world, but it has not done China
or Russia any favours as well. In scholarship, the moral appeal of U.S. democracy
and the ethical criticisms against authoritarian-like regimes of Russia and
China creates the notion of the U.S. being the only moral superpower. It is the
strong moral appeal of democracy that makes U.S. hegemony unthreatened;
non-democratic regimes simply cannot lead an increasingly democratic world.
While Russia and China are in no doubt rising superpowers, the threat they pose to the hegemonic position
of the United States is exaggerated. The U.S. is still the global leader in
both economic and military terms and still has the most aggressive and
wide-reach foreign policy to date. Despite being relatively outplayed from time
to time, it is still the absolute standard and leader in global politics. What locks the position of the U.S. as the
global hegemon for the foreseeable future is its legitimacy. The constructed
moral dimension of the legitimacy debate is the deciding factor as to why the
world cannot anoint a replacement just yet. The world is coming for it, no
doubt, but the U.S. is here to stay.
