Should the U.S. be contained or balanced?

Despite of its unrivaled power after the World War II and then the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the United States has not only used its power responsibly but also helped create and participate in a range of international institutions that constrained its actions. The United States also introduced the fundamental liberal principles into the rules and regulations of the international society including democracy, global free trade, liberty and equality (Balyis et al pp. 116-117).

However, the U.S invasion of Iraq and the war on terror have raised concerns throughout the world about what is considered an unrestrained use of power by the United States, seen as a result of disturbance in the balance of power after the collapse of the USSR.

Liberals in general believe that U.S. power should be restrained and embedded into the international system as the most effective and acceptable way of exercising global hegemony. Most realists believe that other great powers would in time emerge to the balance the United States (Balyis et al, pp 76)

In his fascinating book “The Post-American World”, Fareed Zakaria explains eloquently that the real challenge for the future of American power is not its own decline but rather the rise of the rest. Zakaria predicts the power of the U.S. will ultimately be balanced by new rising nations and that the U.S. will face a choice of whether it stabilizes the world order by accepting a world with a diversity of voices and viewpoints. Or it can watch the world it helped to build over last 60 years to be slowly torn apart by greater nationalism, diffusion, and disintegration.

The integration of worldwide economy and the intensifying interdependence have made it almost impossible for a single country to stall the emergence of new political actors and regaining the balance of power. Baylis et al explain how countries like Britain in 1992 was forced to abandon its economic strategies to adjust to new global market realities, adding that no government even the most powerful has the resources to resist sustained speculations against its currency and thereby the credibility of its economic policy. (Balyis et al, pp. 16)

Unlike the downfall of the British superpower trigged by its economic failures, the largest challenges facing the U.S. and seem to be undermining its hegemony are political rather than economic. Fareed Zakaria explains that although the economic problems in the U.S. today are real, but different policies can quickly put the economy back on track, however, the U.S. political system is dysfunctional and unable to make simple reforms that can secure the country’s future. He argues that Washington seems largely unaware of the new world rising around it and shows few signs of being able to reorient its policies for the new age (The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria)

In another word, and as Morgenthau puts it—the structure of the international relations in U.S foreign policy is irrelevant to the reality of international politics. The incompatibility between both will cause unmanageability of international relations and anarchy (Kauffman et al, pp. 148-149)

Therefore, I do not think the U.S. has a choice whether to allow other balancing powers to take its place at the helm, and should not resist it. A world in which the United States takes up less space, but is one in which the American ideas and ideals are overwhelmingly dominant, is a lot more stable than a world in which the U.S. is a superpower but Anti-Americanism is fueling hate and violence and making America less secure.