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: "Rather than promoting a progressive global agenda, the United States has often undermined effective cooperation and coordination between countries as a result of unilateralist and self-interested policies. Thus, it has often regarded the United Nations as an ineffectual rival to its national interests – leading the country to disasters such as the Iraq war and undemocratically vetoing internationally-backed initiatives in the UN Security Council, such as those critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rather than showing leadership, the US has also obstructed international efforts to tackle climate change, as seen by George W. Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and President Obama’s signing of the deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord.[8]. Many instances have also shown America’s willingness to pursue its own commercial interests at the expense of vital international issues. One example of this was George W. Bush’s protectionism in protecting the “intellectual property rights” and the high price of drugs (including Anti-AIDS drugs) of US pharmaceuticals, which damaged the international fight against AIDS.

Furthermore with regards to international terrorism, the UNSC worked through the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) which had a minor US presence and was set up to tackle terrorism from the root causes rather than using military might.

[8] On the Copenhagen Accord, see The Independent, ‘Obama’s climate accord fails the test’, 19 December, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/obamas-climate-accord-fails-the-test-1845090.html , Accessed 13th May, 2011.

[9] Mann, Michael (2003), Incoherent Empire, (London), pp. 58-59.

Mokhiber, Russell and Robert Weissman (2003), ‘The Two Faces of Bush in Africa’, Common Dreams, July 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0711-14.htm , Accessed 14th May 2011.

United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/"
Candidate 3: "The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]

[6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.

[7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004."
Candidate 4: "On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America’s support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other ‘humanitarian interventions’ have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations."
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: "While the liberal order the US has constructed has benefited its allied economies in Western Europe and Japan, for much of the developing world the benefits have been few and far between. For example, many African and Asian nations have suffered tremendously from the spread of free market capitalism and the “structural adjustment programmes” imposed on them by the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rather than helping poorer nations, the West (led by America) has often practiced selective freed trade, whereby the markets of the developing world were opened up to foreign companies as the United States and its Western allies subsidized and provided unfair advantages to sectors of their own economies that were not as globally competitive, such as farming. This crippled the agricultural industries of many developing countries and made them dependent on importing food, directly contributing to many recent food crises. What is more, the US and its allies have manipulatively achieved this through nominally “multilateral” and “fair” institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).[3] Many countries have not received the benefits of this so-called “benign” open, liberal order.

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

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton)."
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.
