Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity




Скачать 279.04 Kb.
НазваниеHegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity
страница1/14
Дата02.11.2012
Размер279.04 Kb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

HEGEMONY!!! DDW10 Hari Ganti and the Hegemons

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity 1

Heg High 2

Heg Low 3

Heg Sustainable (1/3) 4

Heg Sustainable (2/3) 5

Heg Sustainable (3/3) 6

Sustainability Extensions 7

Hard Power 7

No Counterbalancing (1/6) 8

No Counterbalancing (2/6) 9

No Counterbalancing (3/6) 10

No Counterbalancing (4/6) 11

No Counterbalancing (5/6) 12

No Counterbalancing (6/6) 13

Counterbalancing Bad 14

Heg Unsustainable 15

Yes Counterbalancing (1/2) 16

Yes Counterbalancing (2/2) 17

Multipolarity Inevitable 18

Multipolarity Not-So-Inevitable 19

Multipolarity Good 20

Multipolarity Bad 21

Offshore Balancing Good (1/2) 22

Offshore Balancing Good (2/2) 23

Offshore Balancing Good Extensions 24

Stability (1/2) 24

Stability (2/2) 25

Economics 26

Democracy Promotion Bad 27

Offshore Balancing Bad (1/3) 29

Offshore Balancing Bad (2/3) 30

Offshore Balancing Bad (3/3) 31

Selective Engagement Bad (1/3) 32

Selective Engagement Bad (2/3) 34

Selective Engagement Bad (3/3) 35

Transition War 36

Soft Power 37

Soft Power Extensions 38

Soft Power Low 38

Soft Power Ineffective 39

No Benign Hegemony 40

A2: Balance of Power 41

Soft Power Bad (Democracy Module) (1/2) 42

Soft Power Bad (Democracy Module) (2/2) 43



Heg High


1. US is already the hegemon now, the squo solves

Wohlforth, 7/20/2009 (William, B.A. in International Relations from Beloit College, M.A. in International Relations from Yale University, Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University, “U.S. Strategy in a Unipolar World” in “American Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power”, Cornell University Press, Page 106)

The United States has already achieved unipolar status. In other words, the status quo is American dominance. True, after 1991 the United States expanded into areas in Central Europe and Asia formerly under Moscow’s sway to the dismay of a weakened Russian state. But in the main theaters of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, U.S. engagement is the status quo. While most alliance theory concerns counterbalancing by status quo states against an aspiring, revisionist power, in the current system restoring equilibrium is a revisionist project. All of the arguments in political science concerning the difficulty of overthrowing a settled, complex, path-dependent social equilibrium now work for rather than against the hegemon. In light of this literature, the barriers to organizing collective action against the status quo United States are much higher than those that frustrated balancing against aspiring, revisionist would-be hegemons like Napoleonic France. Theory and history this suggest that even if the United States were physically located in Eurasia, and there were no nuclear weapons, globalization, democracy, modern international institutions, or new norms against the use of force, it could sustain a unipolar system. It would only need to be a bit stronger relative to rivals than Napoleon’s France was, and the evidence shows that it possesses and will long maintain a far greater share of system capabilities than France ever had.


Heg Low


1. Heg has plummeted troop overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report (world's leading weekly magazine for aviation and aerospace professionals) April 15, 2008 [Lexis]

Growing concerns with the U.S. having enough Army and Marine Corps land forces to react to potential unforeseen crises overseas are drawing attention on Capitol Hill. The concerns come as lawmakers craft fiscal 2009 defense bills and eye post-Bush administration budgetmaking, keeping in mind the looming potential for a significant number of troops operating in Iraq for years to come and the strain that deployments so far have placed on the volunteer U.S. military. ?We have had 12 military contingencies in the last 31 years, some of them major and most of them unexpected,? House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said at a recent hearing. ?We must have a trained and properly equipped force ready to handle whatever comes. But my strong concern is that our readiness shortfalls and the limitations on our ability to deploy trained and ready ground forces have reached a point where these services would have a very steep uphill climb with increased casualties to respond effectively to an emerging contingency,? Skelton said. Skelton made the remarks at an April 9 hearing with the four-star vice chiefs of the Army and Marines, both of whom admitted that they were not satisfied with their respective service?s so-called strategic depth to respond to crisis scenarios like the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. Army Gen. Richard Cody testified that the Army remains ?out of balance,? repeating what has become a common official Army phrase referring to the need to recruit, station, train and equip soldiers for more than just counterinsurgency operations (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 17). ?The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies,? Cody said. ?Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army?s ability to make a timely response to other contingencies,? the Army vice chief said.


Heg Sustainable (1/3)


1. Heg sustainable- insurmountable military and economic power

Brooks & Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors of Government at Dartmouth College (Stephen G. & William C., World Out of Balance, p. 27-31)

“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic, technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States’ share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”


Heg Sustainable (2/3)


2. Heg sustainable: Benevolent hegemony and no counterbalancing

Christopher Layne. Professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at Texas A&M. 2009. “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony—Myth or Reality? A Review Essay.” International Security.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

Похожие:

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconReassessing Power, Resistance and Negotiation: Cultural Hegemony, Social Discipline, and Technologies of Power

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconUniqueness No Space Weaponization now

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconThe Conflicting Rebirth of Multipolarity in International Relations

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconHegemony

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconIp внешняя политика везде и во всем Новый мир, старое мышление Эберхард Зандшнайдер Республика без компаса Ханс-Петер Шварц Оранжевая революция в Киеве Соня Марголина США утрачивают Soft Power Джозеф С. Най Писать об Освенциме Франциска Аугштайн Дорогие читатели!
Это справедливо по отношению к проблемам мира и международной стабильности, экологическим проблемам, проблемам голода, эпидемий,...
Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconThe power supply system is intended for приго-товления to a gas mixture of required structure on all power setting, submissions топли-ва to the engine and a

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity icon10th wseas/iasme international Conference on electric power systems, high voltages, electric machines (power '10)

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconThe soft side of software engineering

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconThe epigenetic turn: the challenge of soft inheritance

Hegemony – Uniqueness, soft power, multipolarity iconZNet Metropolitan Books foreign policy [In his new book, Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky continues his powerful

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница