US Demise: Myth of Reality Flashcards
From as far back as the 1960s people have spoken of a US decline (economic & militarily). What events has caused this perception of US decline?
- Vietnam War
- Fears of Soviet superiority
- Watergate (1973-4) = credibility gap
- Iranian Hostage (& rescue attempt) = Pres. Carter
- Relative economic decline = Pres. Reagan, 2nd Cold War, huge financial deficit (US debt grew by 187%)
The end of the Cold War led to a unipolar would where the US is a ‘hyperpower’ meaning there was a rise in the theory of US dominance. What recent events have led to speculations of US decline to return?
- G.W. Bush = originally semi-isolationist, foreign policy turns radical, initial success
- Iraq/Afghanistan
- Climate change = lack of US responsibility/leadership
- The rise of other states especially China = economic strength not necessarily military strength/ international responsibility
How did the terrorist attacks on 9/11 contribute to the theory of US decline?
- 9/11 destroys the perception of US domestic invulnerability
- Original notion = power makes you safe
- 9/11 happened because they’re the most powerful country in the world
- Strength requires country to take certain responsibilities, post-9/11 had to go to war to protect status?
How may decline be analysed?
- Military, economic & diplomatic decline
- Are we concerned about absolute and/or relative decline? The rapidity & extent of relative rise & fall
- The policies states adopt; and to the extent to which states’ positions are embedded within ‘legalised hierarchies’ e.g. UN Security Council
- How the state allows themselves to be percieved = states often exaggerate their capabilities, hide technology, claim to have technology others don’t
Analysing the idea of US decline through Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and War ‘images’ how does the theory fit in with Waltz’s third image of international structure? How does the US interact with other global actors?
- Does the ‘empire’ analogy work?
- ‘Cocacolarisation’ rather than colonisation = Americanization conquering territory with private industry, states model themselves in their image
- Non-territorial
- Institutionalised (legalised hegemony)
- Who/where are the opposing poles?
- EU? China? India? Russia? Japan?
- Are these potential poles likely to band together or to side with the US (bandwagon)?
- Balance of power = states will naturally balance to stop a single actor becoming dominant
Analysing the idea of US decline through Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and War ‘images’ how does the theory fit in with Waltz’s second image of the internal structure of states? Materially how does the US compare to other states?
- Materially US still powerful
- The narrative usually attached to statistics such as these is that the US is in decline whereas its key potential competitors (especially China & to some extent India) are on the rise
How may the internal structure of China hold back its potential to rival the US as a global superpower?
- Demographics = in 2004 the over-60s comprised 11% of population, by 2040 they will account for 28% (i.e. almost 400 million) – no state based pension system
- Male to female ratio of 130 to 100 (‘normally’ c 105 to 100) – One Child Policy
- Costs to maintain non-democratic political system – spends as much on internal security as on defence
- Huge economic disparity - 5% of population hold 50% of savings, 16% of population live on less than $1.25 a day, 36% live on $2 a day
How may the internal structure of India potentially hold back its potential to rival the US as a global superpower?
- 1/3rd of the population is illiterate
- 78 million homes have no electricity, 128 million do not have access to clean drinking water, 840 million do not have access to sanitation
- Huge economic disparity - 40% of the world’s poor live in India, 28% of population live on less than $1.25 a day, over 80% live on under $2 a day (4th highest proportion in the world)
- 60% of the workforce is agricultural, 50% subsistence agriculture
Analysing the idea of US decline through Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the State and War ‘images’ how does the theory fit in with Waltz’s first image of human nature/behaviour? How might President Obama affect the situation internationally and domestically?
- Internationally = the perception of the US has generally improved
- Domestically = initial ‘honeymoon’ period, but as of April 2010 polls suggest more Americans disapprove (48.7%) than approve (47.1%) of his presidency
If we accept the decline narrative what options are open to the US?
- Cooperation, competition or conflict
- It won’t necessarily be for the US to choose
For what reasons is the US arguably not in decline, particularly when assessing their material capabilities and their global role?
- Great powers are traditionally materially – and particularly militarily – defined
- In military terms the US continues to hold an unassailable position = has technological advantage
- The US is accustomed to leadership, since 1945 it has invested massively in creating a global institutional infrastructure which cements its leadership role i.e. through the UN, World Bank, treaty networks
- Others are accustomed to US leadership
- Future superpowers may not necessarily seek the mantle of global leadership? New leadership may not be accepted by other states
According to the SIPRI Yearbook 2012 how much of the total world spending on military expenditure did the US account for?
41% = $711 billion
2nd = China = 8.2% (est.)
According to the IMF how much of the total world GDP did the US account for in 2012 (estimated)?
22.3% = 15.6 trillion
2nd = China = 11.8%
