Cal Institute 2010 Hegemony Good/Bad
Huston/Shackelford/Gray
Hegemony Good/Bad
Hegemony Good/Bad 1
______4
***Uniqueness*** 4
Hegemony Low - Hegemony in flux now 5
Hegemony Low - Nations moving to become major influence 6
Obama’s view of Hegemony 7
Future of U.S. Hegemony: Hegemony will decrease 8
Hegemony Unsustainable – Other Countries Catching Up 9
Hegemony Unsustainable – No Solutions Left 10
Hegemony Unsustainable – US Falling Behind 11
Hegemony Unsustainable – US Losing Power 12
Hegemony Unsustainable – Middle East 14
Hegemony Unsustainable—Middle East Opposition 15
Hegemony Unsustainable – China Takeover 16
Hegemony Unsustainable – Russia Takeover 17
Hegemony Unsustainable – US should use current influence to get multilateral cooperation 18
Hegemony Unsustainable – General (1/2) 19
Hegemony Unsustainable – US Replaced by Europe/Asia 21
Hegemony Unsustainable – Econ Prevents 22
Hegemony Unsustainable - Econ Decline (1/2) 23
Hegemony Unsustainable — Falling Now (1/2) 25
Hegemony Unsustainable – Diversity Triggers 27
Hegemony Unsustainable – Unipolarity Disappearing 28
Hegemony Unsustainable – Loss of Hegemony Inevitable 29
Hegemony Unsustainable – Public Opinion Opposes 30
Hegemony Unsustainable – China Threatens 31
Hegemony Unsustainable – China Causes Multipolarity 32
Hegemony Low — General 35
Hegemony Low — Cuts in Defense 36
Hegemony Low — Other Factors 37
Hegemony Low – China 38
Hegemony Low – Debt 39
Hegemony Low – US Biggest Loser 40
Hegemony Low – China Beats 41
Hegemony High Now - No Precedent (1/2) 42
Hegemony High Now – General 44
Hegemony High Now – Iran Sanctions 45
U.S. Hegemony High – Global Leader 47
Hegemony High Now – General 48
Hegemony High Now – Still Key 49
U.S. Hegemony High – No Balancing 50
Hegemony high, Asia Can’t Replace 52
Hegemony High Now – No Balancing 54
U.S. Hegemony High – No Balancing 55
Hegemony Sustainable – General 56
Hegemony Sustainable – General 57
Hegemony Sustainable – General 59
U.S. Hegemony Sustainable – General 60
Hegemony Sustainable – US is Unique 61
Hegemony Unsustainable - Maintain Hegemony unsuccessful 63
Obama committed to maintain US Hegemony 64
Obama will use military to enforce US policies 65
Obama has chance to change US Hegemony 66
Obama administration Hegemonymonic acts are continuation of past actions 67
Obama administration has demonstrated strong leadership 1/2 69
Hegemony Unsustainable - Current financial crisis will undermine 71
Obama is following in the footsteps of his predecessors 72
Current administration perpetuates past Hegemonymonic actions 73
US Hegemonymonic outlook and practices will not change 74
Hegemony High - Hegemonic power still vital and viable 75
Hegemony High – Being Maintained 76
Hegemony High - Other countries not ready 77
Uniqueness – China Supports U.S. Heg 78
Rhetoric proves perpetuation 79
Hegemony High – Iraq War Did Nothing 80
______81
***Link*** 81
Link - China will challenge 82
US sponsored UN Resolution (Iran Sanctions) hypocritical 83
US influence crucial to Russia and China cooperation on the Iran resolution 84
US uses UN resolution to own foreign policy ends 85
US threatens global security by threatening Iran 86
US influence has successfully encircled Russia & China 87
Justification for current conflicts misguided 88
Security Strategies by the US perpetuates past Hegemonic intents 89
US key to NPT review success in Middle East 90
Little progress being made in non-proliferation efforts 91
US Military Presence in Japan Increases Hegemony 92
Link: Can’t leave Iraq now 93
Link – Presence K2 Heg: Asia 96
Link – South Korea Withdrawal Kills Heg 97
Link – South Korea Presence K2 Heg 98
Link – Presence K2 Heg: South Korea 99
Link: Hegemony Good: Afghanistan 101
Link - Overstretch Afghanistan 102
Link - Overstretch 103
HegemonyGood: Link: Afghanistan 104
Iraq/Afghanistan Link – Withdraw Maintains Soft Power 105
Iraq Link – Hegemony Incites Terrorism 106
Iraq Link – US Presence Increases Terrorism 107
General Link – Hegemony Causes Instability 108
Link – Iraq – US Stabilizes 109
Link -- Increase Hegemony – US-Turkey Relations 110
Link -- Russia Relations 111
Link – Iraq – Leaving Does Nothing to Hegemony 112
______112
***Internal Link*** 112
Although flawed, unipolarity is best option 113
Challenges to US Hegemony: China & Japan 114
Challenges to US Hegemony: Russia 115
Challenges to US Hegemony: India, the EU & others 116
Challenges to US Hegemony: Islamic fundamentalism 117
Internal Link – Soft Power = Hegemony 118
US views itself as the reluctant superpower necessary to maintain peace 119
Russia and China will not cooperate with the West 120
US has responsibility to be world leader 121
Internal link: Afghanistan Withdraw Increase Terrorism, Threatens India 122
Internal Link – U.S. Presence Causes Terrorism 123
Internal Link – North Korea War 124
Internal Link – Nuclear Taiwan War 125
______126
***Impact*** 126
Impact – Loss of Hegemony Increases Instability 127
Consequences of multipolarity would be disastrous 128
Conflicts will exist between liberalism and autocracy 129
Russia & China have alternative view of the world in conflict with US goals 130
US Hegemony solves multiple scenarios of conflict 1/2 131
US foreign policy needs to adapt to lack of cooperation from autocracies 133
Democracy promotion best way to combat Russia and China 134
US only power willing to confront Islamic fundamentalism 135
US has no choice but to promote democracy in the Middle East 136
Hegemony Sustainable + Good 137
Impact: HegemonyGood; Afghanistan 139
Hegemony Bad Impact – Proliferation 140
Hegemony Bad Impact – Proliferation = Nuclear War 141
Hegemony Prevents War 142
Heg Good Impact – Hegemony = Peace 144
Heg Impact Good – Hegemony Solves 145
Impact: Hegemony Prevents NW 147
Impact – Hegemony Causes Peace 150
Impact – Terrorism = Nuclear War 151
Impact – Terrorism = Prolif and Nuclear War 152
Impact – Nuclear Terrorism 153
Impact – Nuclear War 155
______157
***General*** 157
A2 China Uniqueness – China Supports U.S. Heg 158
9/11 has driven grand strategy of unipolarity 159
9/11 attacks have forever changed US strategy for more multilateral action 160
Terror threats will continue to drive US actions 161
Lack of international community stifles problem solving 162
Current foreign policy gaining bipartisan support 163
Atmosphere is good for bipartisan support of foreign policy 164
Conflicts with Islamic fundamentalism inevitable 165
US maintains power through religiously based Manifest Destiny principles 1/2 166
US maintains power through religiously based Manifest Destiny principles 2/2 167
Europeans would adopt “Manifest Destiny” as their own 168
Middle East War inevitable 169
US may not be best model for the EU 171
Europeans attracted to US constitution as model for EU 1/2 172
Europeans would model the EU after the US 174
EU might be best served by looking elsewhere for constitutional model 175
Europe will reject “Manifest Destiny” because too nationalistic 176
EU strength is in diplomatic rather than military means to resolve disputes 177
EU cannot emulate the US 178
Past examples (Britain & Rome) not applicable to US Hegemony 179
The EU seeks to compete with the US for influence 181
NPT Review negotiations difficult without US direction 182
2010 NPT Review important first step in disarmament efforts 183
______
***Uniqueness***
Hegemony Low - Hegemony in flux now
Other nations trying to determine what various roles ought to be played in decision making; some are resisting the movement toward a multipolar world
Park Sang-seek 2009 (is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed. How will the world change in 2010s? THE KOREA HERALD December 31, lexis)
Recently the BBC Magazine selected 9/11 as the world's most frequently mentioned and significant word in the first decade of the 21st century. What has happened in the world in the first decade of the 21st century shows that 9/11 is a sign for the emergence of a new international order.The euphoria of the Western world following the collapse of the Soviet bloc lasted for only a decade. Political leaders and pundits in the West predicted that the world would be safer and more prosperous in the post-Cold War era because democracy would become the universally accepted form of state governance and liberal internationalism would promote free economic exchange and co-prosperity among nations.
Contrary to such predictions, in the non-Western world a disguised form of democracy has become prevalent and the international economic order based on the Washington consensus has aggravated the wealth disparity between rich and poor nations and within nations in the non-Western world, although it has accelerated economic growth globally.In the first decade of the 21st century the problems of good governance and wealth distribution have become more serious and additional issues have emerged. The first issue is whether the unipolar world order led by the United States is necessary for world peace and prosperity. Not only the non-Western world but also some Western nations question the desirability and even feasibility of U.S. hegemony. The second is whether democracy should be practiced at the international level and whether the spread of democracy can guarantee peace among nations. The non-Western world supports the former view, while the Western world has strong reservations. On the latter, the Western world, particularly the United States, believes it, while the non-Western world questions it. The United States under the George W. Bush administration strongly championed democratic peace theory and made efforts to transform non-democratic states into democracies. The third issue concerns whether global issues created by globalization, including wealth disparity, resources depletion, environmental degradation, international terrorism/crimes and religious/ideological clashes, can and should be handled by states alone or multilaterally, particularly through international organizations. Most nations agree that unilateral solutions may be desirable but multilateral solutions are more effective. The irony is that nations, particularly great powers and developing countries, have no intention to compromise on their national sovereignty for multilateral solutions. What kind of national security strategy nations should pursue is the fourth issue. This issue is related to the question of how to deal with nontraditional security issues such as terrorism and international crimes which cannot be solved by hard power alone. In the rapidly globalizing world, a nuclear power can kill a million people instantly but can hardly subjugate a person's mind, as Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out.
Hegemony Low - Nations moving to become major influence
United States has tried to maintain unipolar world; being challenged by others
Park Sang-seek 2009 (is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed. How will the world change in 2010s? THE KOREA HERALD December 31, lexis)
Ordinary people in the age of globalization are intellectually and ideologically well armed to resist foreign domination and suppression. In the first decade the United States has made all efforts to preserve the unipolar moment through informal as well as formal alliances and solution of security issues mainly through traditional military means unilaterally or through alliances rather than multilateral mechanisms. It also has used the international financial institutions to maintain its economic supremacy. In other words, the United States has created an imagined hostile bloc with the cold war mindset. This imagined bloc includes any countries or group of countries which oppose U.S. leadership and American ideology. Meanwhile, China has been building up its national power and economy. Some wonder whether China will assume the position of the Soviet Union in the cold war era and become another superpower challenging U.S. hegemony.
Obama’s view of Hegemony
Obama defends US hegemony; although he supports multilateral action, must be led by the U.S.
Park Sang-seek 2009 (is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed. How will the world change in 2010s? THE KOREA HERALD December 31, lexis)
This view has become particularly popular since the October 2009 international financial crisis. Obama presented his political philosophy at the award-giving ceremony for his Noble Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10. He supports just war and defends American hegemony in the cold war and the two decades of the post-cold war period. Based on this conviction, he supports war in self-defense and humanitarian intervention. The problem with his philosophy is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define acts of self-defense and humanitarian intervention. In order to avoid this pitfall, many world-renowned scholars and pundits advocate multilateral intervention, collective security and cooperative security. He emphasizes multilateral actions, but only when led by the United States His philosophy reflects the traditional view of American hegemony, albeit an enlightened one.
Future of U.S. Hegemony: Hegemony will decrease
U.S. hegemony will decrease in the next decade; other nations will step in
Park Sang-seek 2009 (is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed. How will the world change in 2010s? THE KOREA HERALD December 31, lexis)
In the second decade, it will become more difficult for the United States to maintain its hegemony. First of all, in the security field the United States can hardly deal with non-traditional issues alone. Even in the case of traditional security issues, the United States can defeat a nation but can hardly subjugate its people. Moreover, international public opinion will strongly oppose it.
Secondly, China and other great powers including India and Russia will make stronger efforts to transform the unipolar political and economic order into a new one. This new international order is already emerging and is likely to coexist with the existing one at least in the second decade.
Third, nations will have no choice but to deal with the consequences of globalization jointly. Henceforth, the United Nations will play a more proactive role and international civil society organizations will become more influential. They will closely cooperate to nurture new global common goods and preserve the existing ones.
Fourth,, despite globalization, nation-states will continue to remain the main actors and this will make international relations more complicated and domestic, regional and global disputes and conflicts of all kinds will increase.
Finally, as U.S. hegemony weakens, the world is likely to split into three security and economic complexes: Asian, European and Asia-Pacific. The United States will try to stay between the three, Russia between the European and Asia-Pacific complexes and China between the Asian and Asia-Pacific complexes. In view of this future development and its geopolitical and economic necessity, South Korea in the second decade needs to navigate very cautiously between the Asian continent and the Pacific Ocean.