Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Superpowers in the Post-Cold War Era pp 50–96Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The United States: Cajoler or Controller?

  • Chapter

  • 114 Accesses

Abstract

The present and future position of the United States in world politics has dominated discussions and debates about international power since 1989. The US has often been referred to as the world’s sole remaining superpower, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. This chapter assesses these claims. The first section examines the power resources of the US in the three key areas outlined and discussed in preceding chapters, that is, the economic, military and ideological/political. Section two continues from this to analyse the core international roles which the US has sought and played since the end of the Cold War in identified key regions of the world. This is vital in view of the crucial importance of a viable and accepted global role in underpinning the status of a superpower.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. M. Walker, ‘Present at the Solution: Madeleine Albright’s Ambitious Foreign Policy’, World Policy Journal XIV (1), pp. 1–10 (9) (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See C. Layne & B. Schwarz, ‘American Hegemony: Without an Enemy’, Foreign Policy 92, pp. 5–23 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Also S. P. Huntington, ‘America’s Changing Strategic Interests’, Survival XXXIII (1), pp. 11–13 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  4. For an argument that Clinton was trying to change traditional foreign policy culture, see M. Cox, US Foreign Policy after the Cold War, ch. 3, Pinter, London (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Bhagwati, ‘The US-Japan Car Dispute: a Monumental Mistake’, International Affairs 72 (2), pp. 261–79 (276) (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. See, for example, R. D. Hormats, ‘Making Regionalism Safe’, Foreign Affairs 73 (2), pp. 97–108 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. On US problems with EU-Asia ties, see G. Hufbauer & J. Schott, ‘Toward Free Trade and Investment in the Asia-Pacific’, The Washington Quarterly 18 (3), pp. 44–5 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. J. Art, ‘A US Military Strategy for the 1990s: Reassurance without Dominance’, Survival 34 (4), pp. 3–23 (7) (1992/3).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. P. Kennedy, ‘The American Prospect’, The New York Review of Books 4 March 1993, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Steel, Temptations of a Superpower, pp. 52–62, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See, for example, J. Clarke, ‘Leaders and Followers’, Foreign Policy 101, pp. 37–51 (46) (1995/6).

    Google Scholar 

  12. For the defence budget comparisons see M. Walker, ‘The New American Hegemony’, World Policy Journal XIII (2), pp. 13–21 (13) (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  13. See also A. R. Coll, ‘America as the Grand Facilitator’, Foreign Policy 87, pp. 47–65 (51) (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. M. Danner, ‘Marooned in the Cold War: America, the Alliance and the Quest for a Vanished World’, World Policy Journal XIV (3), pp. 3–4 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  15. On this see A. Tonelson, ‘Superpower without a Sword’, Foreign Affairs 72 (3), pp. 166–80 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. A. H. Cordesman, US Defence Policy: Resources and Capabilities, RUSI, London (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  17. On this, see: P. G. Cerny, ‘Political Entropy and American Decline’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18 (1), pp. 47–63 (1989); and

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. D. P. Calleo, ‘America’s Federal Nation State: a Crisis of Post-Imperial Viability?’ Political Studies 42, pp. 16–33 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. See also S. P. Huntington, ‘The Erosion of American National Interests’, Foreign Affairs 76 (5), pp. 28–49 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. On these issues, see, for example: R. D. Hormats, ‘The Roots of American Power’, Foreign Affairs 70 (3), pp. 130–49 (1991); and D. Gergen, ‘How is America Changing?’ in America’s Role in a Changing World (Adelphi Paper No. 257), pp. 11–14, IISS, London (1990/91).

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. S. Nye, Bound to Lead: the Changing Nature of American Power, pp. 14–16 & 219–30, Basic Books, New York (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. E. Spence, ‘Entering the Future Backwards: Some Reflections on the Current International Scene’, Review of International Studies 20 (1), pp. 11–12 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Z. Khalilzad, ‘Losing the Moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War’, The Washington Quarterly 18 (2), pp. 87–107 (104) (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. C. W. Maynes, ‘“Principled” Hegemony’, World Policy Journal XIV (3), pp. 31–6 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. Mahbubani, ‘The United States: “Go East Young Man”’, The Washington Quarterly 17 (2), pp. 5–23 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. See also S. P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, pp. 107–9, Simon & Schuster, New York (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. J. Del Rosso, ‘The Insecure State: Reflections on “the State” and “Security” in a Changing World’, Daedalus 124 (2), p. 195 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. N. Haass, ‘Paradigm Lost’, Foreign Affairs 74 (1), pp. 43–58 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. Mandelbaum, ‘Foreign Policy as Social Work’, Foreign Affairs 75 (1), pp. 16–32 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. For an insightful and balanced assessment of the formulation of the new doctrine see D. Brinkley, ‘Democratic Enlargement: the Clinton Doctrine’, Foreign Policy 106, pp. 111–27 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  31. For examples of this kind of analysis of US foreign policy and international activity overall, see: W. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996); and

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. N. Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, Pluto, London (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. E. Hunt, Ideology and US Foreign Policy, chs 1–4, Yale University Press, New Haven (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  34. K. Sikkink, ‘The Power of Principled Ideas: Human Rights Policies in the United States and Western Europe’, in J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy, ch. 6, Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  35. H. Molineu, US Policy toward Latin America: From Regionalism to Globalism, p. 10, Westview, Boulder (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Hurrell, ‘Latin America in the New World Order: a Regional Bloc of the Americas?’ International Affairs 68 (1), pp. 121–39 (130) (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. See also R. A. Pastor, ‘The Latin American Option’, Foreign Policy 88, pp. 107–25 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Also R. Krugman, ‘The Uncomfortable Truth about NAFTA: It’s Foreign Policy, Stupid’, Foreign Affairs 72 (5), pp. 13–19 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. M. Nairn, ‘Latin America the Morning After’, Foreign Affairs 74 (4), pp. 45–61 (58) (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. See F. Pena, ‘New Approaches to Economic Integration in the Southern Cone’, The Washington Quarterly 18 (3), pp. 113–22 (21) (1995). Also ‘The Mirage That Won’t Go Away’, The Economist 10 May 1997, p. 70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. M. D. Hayes, ‘The US and Latin America: a Lost Decade?’, Foreign Affairs 68 (1), pp. 187–9 (1988/9). A. Lowenthal, ‘Rediscovering Latin America’, Foreign Affairs 69 (4), pp. 27–41 (29) (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  42. C. Layne, ‘Superpower Disengagement’, Foreign Policy 77, pp. 17–40 (21) (1989/90).

    Google Scholar 

  43. H. A. Kissinger, White House Years, p. 426, Little Brown, Boston (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  44. S. P. Huntington, ‘The US: Decline or Renewal?’ Foreign Affairs 67 (2), pp. 76–96 (93) (1988/9).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. P. R. S. Gebhard, The United States and European Security (Adelphi Paper No. 286), p. 25, IISS, London (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  46. K. Tong, ‘Revolutionizing America’s Japan Policy’, Foreign Policy 105, pp. 107–14 (115) (1996/7).

    Google Scholar 

  47. For a similar argument with regard to the US and NATO, see G. Lundestad, The American Empire’, p. 79, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  48. On the Big Emerging Markets, see J. Stremlau, ‘Clinton’s Dollar Diplomacy’, Foreign Policy 97, pp. 18–35 (1994/5).

    Google Scholar 

  49. J. Hillen, ‘Superpowers Don’t Do Windows’, Orbis 41 (2), pp. 241–57 (250) (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. R. Rotberg, ‘Clinton Was Right’, Foreign Policy 102, pp. 135–41 (141) (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. J. A. Baker, ‘America in Asia: Emerging Architecture for a Pacific Community’, Foreign Affairs 70 (5), pp. 3–4 (1991/2).

    Google Scholar 

  52. J. Kelly, ‘US Security Policies in East Asia: Fighting Erosion and Finding a New Balance’, The Washington Quarterly 18 (3), pp. 31–4 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. G. C. Hurst, ‘The US-Japanese Alliance at Risk’, Orbis 41 (1), pp. 69–76 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. For an insightful discussion of shifts in US policy during 1994, see H. Harding, ‘Asia Policy on the Brink’, Foreign Policy 96, pp. 57–74 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. For the latter perspective, see J. T Almonte, ‘Ensuring Security the “ASEAN Way”’, Survival 39 (4), pp. 80–92 (1997/8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. D. P. Rapkin, ‘Japan and World Leadership?’ in Rapkin (ed.), World Leadership and Hegemony, p. 199. Lynne Rienner, Boulder (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  57. M. M. May, ‘Japan as a Superpower?’ International Security 18 (3), p. 186 (1993/4).

    Google Scholar 

  58. T. U. Berger, ‘From Sword to Chrysanthemum: Japan’s Culture of Anti-Militarism’, International Security 17 (4), pp. 119–50 (131) (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. On the impact of the North Korean crisis, see C. W. Hughes, ‘The North Korean Nuclear Crisis and Japanese Security’, Survival 38 (2), pp. 79–103 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. On the impact of Chinese bullishness, see M. J. Green & B. L. Self, ‘Japan’s Changing China Policy: From Commercial Liberalism to Reluctant Realism’, Survival 38 (2), pp. 42–5 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. M. Mochizuki & M. O’Hanlon, ‘A Liberal Vision for the US-Japanese Alliance’, Survival 40 (2), pp. 129–30 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. For details and analysis of the IMF’s role in responding to the Asian crisis, see S. D. Sharma, ‘Asia’s Economic Crisis and the IMF’, Survival 40 (2), pp. 27–52 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. For an exploration of traditional Japanese policy, see K. E. Calder, ‘Japanese Foreign Economic Policy Formation: Explaining the Reactive State’, World Politics XL (4), pp. 517–41 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. For two different views, see the successive articles: R. S. Ross, ‘Enter the Dragon’, Foreign Policy 104, pp. 18–25 (1996);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. & G. Mastel, ‘Beijing at Bay’, Foreign Policy 104, pp. 27–34 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  66. See also D. Wall, ‘China as a Trade Partner: Threat or Opportunity for the OECD?’ International Affairs 72 (2), pp. 329–44 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. On this, see: M. Oksenberg, ‘The China Problem’, Foreign Affairs 70 (3), pp. 1–16 (9) (1991);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. J. L. Domenach, ‘The Loosening of China’, in Z. Laiedi (ed.), Power and Purpose after the Cold War, ch. 6, p. 138, Berg, Oxford (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  69. See: J. M. Roberts, The Penguin History of the World, pp. 128–42 & 442–8, Penguin, London (1995);

    Google Scholar 

  70. & L. W. Pye, ‘China: Erratic State, Frustrated Society’, Foreign Affairs 69 (4), pp. 56–74 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Good on these arguments is J. A. Goldstone, ‘The Coming Chinese Collapse’, Foreign Policy 99, pp. 35–52 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. G. Segal, China Changes Shape: Regionalism and Foreign Policy (Adelphi Paper No. 287), IISS, London (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  73. for a questioning of Segal’s views on growing economic disparities, see Y. Huang, ‘Why China Will Not Collapse’, Foreign Policy 99, pp. 54–68 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. L. M. Wortzel, ‘China Pursues Traditional Great Power Status’, Orbis 38 (2), pp. 157–75 (1994);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. D. Roy, ‘Hegemon on the Horizon? China’s Threat to East Asian Security’, International Security 19 (1), pp. 149–68 (1994);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. R. Bernstein & R. H. Munro, ‘The Coming Conflict with America’, Foreign Affairs 76 (2), pp. 18–32 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. K. W. Kim, ‘Maintaining Asia’s Current Peace’, Survival 39 (4), pp. 52–64 (56) (1997/8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. M. G. Gallagher, ‘China’s Illusory Threat to the South China Sea’, International Security 19 (1), pp. 169–94 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. R. S. Ross, ‘Beijing as a Conservative Power’, Foreign Affairs 76 (2), pp. 35–8 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. J. S. Nye, ‘China’s Re-emergence and the Future of the Asia-Pacific’, Survival 39 (4), pp. 65–79 (70) (1997/8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. For Nye’s views on the increasing importance of information technology as a source of power, see J. S. Nye & W. A. Owens, ‘America’s Information Edge’, Foreign Affairs 75 (2), pp. 20–36 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. On the diverse factors listed here, see: R. Horlemann, ‘Japan’s Changing Policy on China’, Aussenpolitik 46 (iv), p. 390 (1995);

    Google Scholar 

  83. D. Roy, ‘Assessing the Asia-Pacific “Power Vacuum”’, Survival 37 (3), p. 55 (1995);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. T. J. Christensen, ‘Chinese Realpolitik’, Foreign Affairs 75 (5), pp. 37–52 (1996);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. G. Segal, ‘The Coming Confrontation between China and Japan?’ World Policy Journal X (2), pp. 27–32 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  86. E. Lewis, ‘The “G7½” Directorate’, Foreign Policy 85, pp. 34–5 (1991/2).

    Google Scholar 

  87. C. W. Kegley & G. Raymond, A Multipolar Peace? Great Power Politics in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 195–6, St. Martin’s, New York (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Relations in a Multipolar World, p. 185, USGPO (1990).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Defence Studies, King’s College, London, UK

    Ken Aldred (Director of the Council for Arms Control)

  2. Defence and International Affairs, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, UK

    Martin A. Smith (Senior Lecturer, Honorary Visiting Research Fellow in Peace Studies)

  3. University of Bradford, UK

    Martin A. Smith (Senior Lecturer, Honorary Visiting Research Fellow in Peace Studies)

Authors
  1. Ken Aldred
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin A. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1999 Ken Aldred and Martin A. Smith

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aldred, K., Smith, M.A. (1999). The United States: Cajoler or Controller?. In: Superpowers in the Post-Cold War Era. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333981276_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation