Challenges to American Global Leadership: Analyzing the Future of US Influence in a Changing World
As with any rising or dominant power, history has shown us that nothing lasts forever, at least not without the right combination of decisions, resources, and other external factors. The United States may intend to remain a vital global force, but can it? Really? The U.S. must examine its entanglements and determine which alliances will support longevity if continuing alliances are a factor. On the other hand, the U.S. has the capacity to remain a global force if chronic deficiencies are addressed and draining alliances are pruned with a critical eye.
The United States can continue to remain a dominant force, but not by happenstance. It will require consciences decision-making and careful strategic planning. Opportunities are emerging every day that could result in a shift in the power balance, especially in unpredictable ways like the recent events that have transpired between Russia and Ukraine (Mayroz). Additionally, the effects of globalization have also caused a ripple across the globe; questions are beginning to emerge, such as "How will globalization be governed?" (Nye Donahue 1). With globalization, power saturations could dissolve into a more collective, evenly distributed map. Alternatively, it could also result in massive polarizations; these are the questions the U.S. needs to ask if it wishes to maintain its current standing. One thing that will always be true is that there is no guarantee or long-term way to secure power or global influence (ever seen Game of Thrones?).
Ultimately, the appeal of a free Democracy has proven to be an inspiration worldwide. The United States has shown what kind of advancements are possible when citizens can pursue education and possess individual rights. The excitement of advancements in technology, healthcare, travel, and space are all points of interest to an existing or potential ally. These advancements, ideas, institutions, and the freedoms they represent can help the United States maintain its appeal as an influential global ally. The advancements and monopolization of the technologies (including social media) produced in the U.S. and maintained in the U.S. are also elements that have preserved the U.S.'s global position as an influencer and leader. In some ways, it also acts as a gatekeeper.
This success has not come without a darker flip side, though; because of the freedoms in the United States, it also means there are issues unique to the sort of democratic power used to govern such a society. The less appealing side is the obvious societal and political decay that has begun to rear its ugly head in recent years as the long-term effects of consumer and commercial culture begin to appear. The U.S. will cease being a leader without its people, and the ruthless nature of corporate exploitation threatens the very well-being of the heart and soul of America. An example would be the effects commercial farming and food production has had on small to medium sized farms that make their living that way.
For being founded as a country that never intended to form alliances or entanglements with any outside entity, stated in the founding documents that the U.S. should "steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world," it has proven that the country is capable and can even benefit from such alliances (Beckley 7). For the last sixty-five years, the United States "has maintained a global network of alliances" (Beckley 7). In regards to discussing indispensable forces, interestingly, the United Nations Security Council has been that to the U.S. in "pursuit of U.S. national security and the maintenance of world order" (McDonald 3). McDonald observed that the UNSC is "also increasingly outdated, its composition unchanged since 1965" (3). Initially, the U.N. supercharged the U.S.'s ability to establish beneficial partnerships and source allies, these relationships being significant during the various wars over the last six decades. However, as the state of global conflicts has changed, these partnerships are in need of some change as well. Wars have evolved from high-octane, high-casualty affairs that burn out in months to what we now call "forever wars," dragging out over the years and costing significantly more lives and resources (Hooker). McDonald described that "global institutions inherited from the past are struggling to adapt to the rise of new challenges and powers" (3). I believe this to be true regarding Hooker's observation; frameworks, wars, and institutions of the past are in a ripe position to be under pressure to evolve.
In response to these struggles to adapt to the times, a proposal has been made to enlarge U.N. membership and include additional members. However, in opposition to enlargement, McDonald stated that "enlargement would dilute U.S. power, increase gridlock, encourage lowest-common-denominator actions, and empower antagonistic leaders of the nonaligned movement (NAM)" (6).
I agree; though adding additional resources to the pool would be a benefit, there is also the unintended consequence of having more Nations to please and more parties to convince when a decision is being made regarding United States welfare. The U.S. has to determine if maintaining, lessening, or growing its stake in the U.N. will help or hinder the U.S.'s position as a vital global force, in addition to further identifying the U.S.'s crucial areas of interest and investing resources to expand those areas. Neglecting partnerships and alliances could backfire and cause a power shift away from the U.S.
As discussed in this essay, we have explored concepts that can hinder or enhance the United States' powers and ultimately affect its status as an indispensable global force. Even with the effects of globalization and possible changes within alliances and partnerships, the U.S. can remain a valuable partner and integral to global success. However, factors such as the effects of globalization could water down the U.S.'s impact. Alternatively, for example, the enlargement of the U.N. could add additional roadblocks and further muddy the foreign relations waters. The United States would cease being a leader without its people, and it would not be the U.S. without some encouraging motto like "If you can dream it, you can do it." Furthermore, with that, I will close.
Beckley, Michael. “The Myth of Entangling Alliances: Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts.” Quarterly Journal: International Security, vol. 39. no. 4. (Spring 2015): 7-48.
Hooker Jr., Richard D. “The US Can’t Fix Afghanistan, but It Can Still Fix NATO.” Atlantic Council, 27 Sept. 2021, www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-us-cant-fix-afghanistan-but-it-can-still-fix-nato.
Mayroz, By Dr Eyal. “The War in Ukraine and the Future of Global Collective Security - Australian Institute of International Affairs.” Australian Institute of International Affairs, 13 Feb. 2023, www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-war-in-ukraine-and-the-future-of-global-collective-security.
McDonald, Kara C., and Stewart M. Patrick. UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests. Council on Foreign Relations, 2010.
Nye, Joseph S., and Robert O. Keohane. Governance in a Globalizing World. Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
