Argument: The US has established an unjust system of unequal relationships in order to exploit developing countries.

While Western Europe and Japan may have been awarded a privileged position in the international order the US constructed following the end of World War II, developing countries were incorporated as “subordinate elements in the global capitalist system.”[32] The global South has in effect been controlled and exploited through nominally multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, which are designed in a way that provides wealthy countries with de facto control. The United States has also set up a “hub and spoke” system to deal with subordinate states, which is built around bilateralism, client states, ‘special relationships’, and patronage-oriented foreign policy, which serves to translate America’s power advantage into concessions from other states.[33] When subordinate states have failed to comply, they have often faced US intervention—from Guatemala, to Iran, to Chile, to Iraq. Through this system of unequal relationships the US has gained access to markets for its corporations, and enjoyed geopolitical and political control of key strategic areas. Developing countries on the other hand have often faced economic stagnation, food crises, and various attacks on their sovereignty.

[32] Bello, Walden (2005). Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire, (London), pp. 153.

[33] For an elaboration of how a “hub and spokes” system works, see Ikenberry, John G. (2004), “Liberalism and empire: logics of order in the American unipolar age”, Review of International Studies, 30, pp. 609-630

Candidate 1: "It is a hyperbole to suggest that American-led globalization and the spread of free and open markets has been “imposed” on developing countries; globalisation has been a far more impersonal and voluntary process. Moreover, rather than being exploited, the spread of free trade and open markets has benefited developing countries; one only needs to see the success of China, and India after 1991 when it embraced neoliberal reforms to find evidence of this. More generally too, World Bank reports have suggested that poorer countries that are “more globalized” have grown faster than even developed countries, while those that are “less globalized” have seen their GDPs drop.[34] The purportedly “hub and spoke” system the US has employed has also benefited many countries, which have received security guarantees from America, and can often count on the US to help tackle regional threats and ensure stability. Middle Eastern states that cooperate with the US to tackle terrorism and a resurgent and nuclear Iran provide examples of this.

[34] Meredith, Robyn and Suzanne Hoppough (2007), ‘Why Globalization is Good’, Forbes, March, 2007. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/064.html , Accessed 17th May, 2011.

Schonwald, Josh (2002), ‘Johnson, economic development expert, discusses globalization and its benefits,’ The University of Chicago Chronicle, February 21, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 10. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020221/globalization.shtml , Accessed 17th May, 2011."
Candidate 2: "The US used its power to establish a set of open global institutions which have been broadly beneficial.

As Robert Cox argues, American hegemony has been successful because the US has been able to maintain its dominance through a high level of global consensus by establishing a broadly accepted rules-based liberal international economic order, and has been able to shape other states’ preferences in a manner that has awarded sufficient benefits to these states while ensuring the dominance of the US.[1] This has been what John Ikenberry terms America’s “liberal grand strategy,”* which has enabled the US to construct a relatively benign and highly institutionalized multilateral system based on open markets, free trade, and the provision of ‘public goods’, such as collective security and an open international trading regime.[2] This has allowed other countries to prosper economically and also in terms of their security; the rebuilding and success of Japan and Germany provides important examples of this.

[1] Cox, Robert. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175.,

Cox, Robert. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, in R.O. Keohane (ed.) NeoRealism and its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)

Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.[2] Ikenberry, John G. (2002), ‘America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2002.

*liberal grand strategy is a terminology that describes the USA’s long term policy goal- to promote its system to other countries."
Candidate 3: "The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.

An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]

[4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156

Mark Beeson &amp; Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.

[5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/worldwide-approval-leadership-tops-major-powers.aspx , Accessed 12th May 2011."
Candidate 4: "The US has provided global leadership in tackling important issues such as terrorism.

America’s hegemonic power has enabled it to provide global leadership on important international concerns. Because the US is affected by the same problems as many other countries in an increasingly inter-connected world (for example climate change, terrorism, epidemics, oil crises, economic recessions, the illegal drugs trade, and nuclear proliferation) it is in its interests to promote policies that are broadly globally beneficial. The US is able to utilize its considerable economic and diplomatic clout to convince its allies to back important multilateral international initiatives. One example of this was George W. Bush’s initiative on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. The United States has also used its power to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide collective security and considerable aid to various nations, as well as leading the international effort to prevent failed or weak states (such as Somalia and Yemen) falling into the hands of terrorists."
Candidate 5: "It is true that the US sometimes resorts to unilateral action to advance its national security interests. However, its commitment to multilateralism is more than just instrumental and cynically selective. Even George W. Bush’s unilateralism—criticized as imperialist by even mainstream analysts—was restricted to certain issues, such as arms control, nonproliferation, and the use of force against certain threatening states. Unilateral military action was only used against Iraq, and even other “rogue” states (specifically Iran and North Korea) were dealt with through diplomatic and multilateral channels.[30] As John Ikenberry argues, the “foundational” multilateralism—as seen in the liberal, open international order the US built following World War II—is still a core part of US foreign policy.[31] Moreover, George Bush Sr.’s painstaking coalition building for the first Gulf War and more recently President Obama’s commitment to working through the UN Security Council for the intervention in Libya demonstrates America’s preference for consensus-based international action.

[30] Robbins, Carla Anne (2007). “Bush Foreign Policy: Grand Vision and its Application” in Fortier, John C. and Ornstein, Norman J. (eds.), Second-Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2007), pp. 89-108.

[31] Ikenberry, John G. (2003), ‘Is American Multilateralism in Decline?’, Perspective on Politics, Vol. 1. http://www.princeton.edu/~gji3/Decline.pdf , Accessed 17th May, 2011."
Candidate 6: "US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002 demonstrated. While the US professes support for democratic forces in the Arab world, it has also continued to give vital assistance to the strategically-important dictatorships of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been responsible for grave human rights abuses in response to recent peaceful protests[14].The US also continues to support states such as Israel which violate international law, and also routinely flouts international law itself—as seen by wars such as Iraq, the treatment of terrorist suspects and breaches of the Geneva convention [15], the undermining of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the violation of countries’ sovereignty with ‘drone’ attacks. Clinical realpolitik, and not the pursuit of democracy and human rights, determines the use of US power.

[14] Goodman, Amy (2011), ‘Barack Obama must speak out on Bahrain bloodshed’, The Guardian: Comment is Free, April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/13/barack-obama-bahrain-bloodshed , Accessed 14th May 2011.The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire.

[15] Chatham House, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion’. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/11390_il270308.pdf , Accessed 15th May 2011."
Candidate 7: "Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity.

Examining the use of American military power following the end of the Cold War shows us that the United States has pursued an agenda of tackling serious threats to international peace, security and prosperity—whether they emanate from rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, oppressive dictators, or war criminals. Humanitarian interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya highlight the importance of these considerations to America’s military strategy, and the willingness of the US to put aside narrow geopolitical interests in order to pursue humanitarian goals, to the benefit of much of the world.[10] America’s military dominance and ‘command of the commons’ (sea, space and air) has also allowed it to provide global collective goods and to maintain an open international order, which is vital to international prosperity.[11]

[10] Rieff, David (2003), “Liberal Imperialism”, in Andrew Bacevich (ed.), The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, (Chicago, 2003)

[11] Posen, Barry R. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 5-46."
Candidate 8: "While the US does have a long history of intervening in various countries across the globe, this has mostly been in response to genuine threats to national security, international peace, and basic human rights in line with the UN Charter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new global discourse has emerged where state sovereignty is no longer regarded as absolute in instances where states endanger international peace and commit human rights abuses.[22] Post-Cold War US interventions (Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have largely followed this discourse. Thus, rather than malignly intervening in other countries, the US has relatively benignly sought to apply pressure on violent and dictatorial regimes, with international law and the will of the international community being central to many of the actions taken. The carefully undertaken Libyan intervention demonstrates this.

[22] Annan, Kofi (1999), ‘Two concepts of sovereignty’, The Economist, 18th September 1999. http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/kaecon.html , Accessed 16th May, 2011."
Candidate 9: "This argument misleadingly presents the nature of US influence as essentially coercive. In fact, it is America’s “soft power”—or the ability to get what it wants through the attractiveness of its culture and political institutions—that has been instrumental in spreading American values.[25] People across the globe—from Singapore, South Korea, and Japan to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—are fascinated by and have emulated what John Agnew terms America’s “Market-Place society,” defined by mass consumerism, the influx of American cultural products and the displacement of traditional social standards.[26] In this context, arguments of “cultural imperialism” exaggerate the level of control the US has over the process, as well as the extent to which conflicts arise.[27] The desirability of American culture and institutions in the eyes of many of the world’s people ensures that soft, and not hard, power has universalized American values.

[25] Nye, Joseph (2004), “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (2004), pp. 255-270.

Nye, Joseph (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2004)

[26] Agnew, John (2005). Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power (Philadelphia)

[27] Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), p. 130."

It is a hyperbole to suggest that American-led globalization and the spread of free and open markets has been “imposed” on developing countries; globalisation has been a far more impersonal and voluntary process. Moreover, rather than being exploited, the spread of free trade and open markets has benefited developing countries; one only needs to see the success of China, and India after 1991 when it embraced neoliberal reforms to find evidence of this. More generally too, World Bank reports have suggested that poorer countries that are “more globalized” have grown faster than even developed countries, while those that are “less globalized” have seen their GDPs drop.[34] The purportedly “hub and spoke” system the US has employed has also benefited many countries, which have received security guarantees from America, and can often count on the US to help tackle regional threats and ensure stability. Middle Eastern states that cooperate with the US to tackle terrorism and a resurgent and nuclear Iran provide examples of this.

[34] Meredith, Robyn and Suzanne Hoppough (2007), ‘Why Globalization is Good’, Forbes, March, 2007. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/064.html , Accessed 17th May, 2011.

Schonwald, Josh (2002), ‘Johnson, economic development expert, discusses globalization and its benefits,’ The University of Chicago Chronicle, February 21, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 10. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020221/globalization.shtml , Accessed 17th May, 2011.
