The United States is seemingly the most powerful nation of the world. We are certainly knowledgeable-about an undeniable fact-that the United States is the global hegemon currently operating in uni-polarity. After a steady diet of conflicts against the Soviet Union, the United States has since taken over the international government single handedly. Here--with the integration of hegemonic stability theory--I question whether United States can be considered as a global hegemon that actually enforces stability in the international arena.

What is hegemonic stability theory? Hegemonic stability theorists argue that international government and politics is characterized by a succession of hegemonies in which a single powerful state dominates the system as due to it's victory in the last hegemonic war. Hegemonic stability theory is a theory in the international relations study, which explains that a hegemony provides some order acting like the central government in the international system. The hegemon helps reduce anarchy, deter aggression and promote free trade. United States took over as the global hegemon during the post-Cold War Era; United Kingdom waned out and was no longer the global hegemon after the World War II. In my last article, I explained about the rough situation UK had to go through after they ran out of funds due to the war; this is the main reason why UK had to surrender it's colonies and step down from the throne. After some years of dispute and fierce competition, America finally won the zero sum game against the opposing super power--that was the last hegemonic war ever witnessed.

U.S. policy, after the Cold War, can be easily be explained through hegemonic stability theory. Global hegemons are constantly in a very challenging position as they are unwilling to lose their position in the world. According to Michael Mastanduno’s argument in "Debating the Unipolar Moment.", this theory requires hegemons to "exert every effort to preserve the status quo, even to the point of preventive war.” This explains why United States always seem to intervene into domestic matters of many countries. United States tries hard in keeping the balance of power in check through international organizations like the United Nations. When the Soviet Union rose to power and the two powers were on par with each other, United States was determined to start a war to show the world that it was the most powerful and effective hegemony in the world.

We must understand that the United States policies were built to not only support Democracy but rather preserve American hegemony. To analyze U.S. policies through hegemonic stability theory, we must go back to the Cold War era. Many recall as the battle of good and evil. It was a widespread concept and belief that the Soviet Union’s communism was a threat to the democratic peace of the world. The United States, as a Democracy took up the challenge to contain Joseph Stalin’s communist dictatorship. Although both nations were the strongest of all, United States clearly was already the strongest among the two.

In comparison to the U.S., Soviet Union deemed very weak in 1945. However, it stood threateningly taller not only in the imagination of the U.S. government and governments all around the world. The Soviet Union was already weak by the end of the World War II as it lost about 27 millions of soldiers against the Nazi Germany, while it’s agricultural economy, mining and transportation systems were seriously undermined. Even though the Cold war was said to be a fight between Democracy and Communism, it was actually United States’ successful mission to prove to the world that they are the only effective global hegemon who can provide stability to the international world. In order to bring about stability, a nation must be able show that it is powerful.

Why is stability important in the international order? During the lecture, we have gone through concepts in the International Relations such as, unipolar, bipolar and multipolar. Unipolar, in my opinion, is proved to be the most successful and bipolar, the most unsuccessful. Mastanduno explains, “In other words, stability requires a hegemon, which is why ‘America remains the indispensable nation’ and why U.S. policy is driven to extend the frontiers of stability, so that ‘a gray zone of insecurity [does] not reemerge in Europe.’” It is believed that in order to maintain stability in the international arena, there must be a central government ensuring that trade, communications, etc. are running smoothly. The reason why U.S. policies are designed not only for America but also for the world is because only a hegemon like, America, has the sufficient power and motivation to provide the public good of international economic stability through its own efforts.

Not only the economy, a hegemon also maintains political-security relations with nations as well. America’s mission of spreading democracy is also a means of spreading American hegemony. As a stabilizer of the world, they want to make sure that all the countries are on the same page as them. The U.S. accepted western European and Japanese departures from international economic liberalization in order ‘to make sure that these areas remained with the general American Spheres of Influence' according to Michael C. Webb, the co-author of the "Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment". The security conflict during the post Cold War has been significant in history. The U.S. as a hegemon tries to avoid conflicts in terms of political security and resort to collective goods.

Although the United States acts as the peacekeeper, it holds a notorious account of unilateralism. Due to it being the most powerful country in the world with the largest military, United States has at times resorted to intervene in foreign matters or even conflicts without any nation’s consent. There are also various issues that many people don’t agree on when it comes to foreign policies. If America can help stabilize the peace and development of the international system, should it remain unilateral or engage in collaborative manner with nations and act multilaterally? This has been the most debated topic in the world of a dominant America.

It gets a little worrisome when a nation so powerful, like America, decides to act unilaterally. When America acts unilaterally, other nations and organizations are left in anger and disappointment as their consent and opinions are not at all taken into consideration. One of the cons of having only a single hegemon is that, the nation can act unilaterally. When making a decision on foreign matters or on the international realm, the global hegemon must cooperate with other nation states and then decide on what needs to be done. However, America, during the post-Cold War era, adopted the collective measure and strategies with the help of the United Nations.

When it came to determining where, when and how to implement force, America ignored the United Nations. America as preponderant nation has for many times, acted unilaterally, taking advantage of their title as the global hegemon. Hegemonic stability theory can be criticized as it isn’t always true that a single hegemon nation can really stabilize the international order. America has committed many mistakes and engendered an increased level of animosity with other countries instead of making decisions that require the international community to discuss and approve on.

“Bush made this quite clear following the Gulf crisis in acknowledging that America would have gone ahead to thwart Iraq's invasion of Kuwait even had the Security Council failed to follow through.” (Tucker, 1999) United States’ position in enforcing unilateralism or multilateralism remains ambiguous to this day. The Cold War brought about unilateralistic approaches by the United States and then, it was quickly replaced by multilateralism. However, United States still continued to operate unilaterally under the mask of multilateralism. During the Bush administration, even after pledging to obtain international and national support for any American-led action, United States began a military intervention in the Panama. During the Clinton administration, the European countries were in disagreement with the United States’ plan for the war in Bosnia. Later in 1995, America had shown the world that it follows by multilateralism, when an American-led negotiation, the Dayton Accord was passed. The Europeans were nevertheless, satisfied of this negotiation on Bosnia. America acting unilaterally isn’t a big surprise for any nation.

American unilateralism is the Middle East. French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin voiced that the U.S. often acts in a unilateral way that undermines its ambition of mobilizing the international community, which was clearly showed in the Iraq war. The only area where America works most unilaterally is the Middle East. Iraq has always been a subject, where even the Clinton administration, considered acting unilaterally for the sake of protecting its interests.

Any nation as a global hegemon would react unilaterally to protect the interests of the world. America may act unilaterally, however, if it wasn’t America, any country would take action unilaterally. Even if it does act unilaterally, it is done so for the sake of protecting stability in the international and national arena. As a global hegemon, America takes action by itself even if it means standing alone on the battlefield. ) It is not to say that America has already met the needs for the order, but if it does, it will be largely due to American hegemonic power.

United States is a global hegemon, that modifies its foreign policies accordingly to the needs of the world. While preserving American hegemony, our country is also stabilizing the economy and political condition of the international system as a central government. Although America can be unilateral in its ways, we carry a lot of responsibilities to be taken care of and fighting may not always mean being together with other nations. Any country in a position that America is in, would act unilaterally in many ways. After all, great power comes with great responsibility.