Our last debate was extremely interesting and I think two main points were brought up that will stick with me: First, there are many different ways in which one can measure or view power. Second, power is a multi-faceted and fickle quality.
I really started thinking about power and just what that means. Yes, the US has the largest military in the world and it is more capable and better trained than any force is the history of mankind. This cannot be separated from my perception of what level of power we possess. To pretend that might and power are not closely related with each influencing the other is completely pointless. However, this has been the case for a long time, and I would argue that during the height of US isolationism when we refused to join the League of Nations and remained formally separate from its progress, our power was limited, regardless of the size of our military. I would argue that our power has grown exponentially since WWII and the formation of the UN, even as our military personnel numbers have shrunk. The reason being is that the US has institutionalized it realm of influence and has been able to enshrine its influence in both diplomatic and economic issues. So power right now seems to be a lofty position in a negotiation, but also the weight of enforcement during any debates.
Lastly, anything can drastically influence the power structure. During the Cold War, the United States had autonomy and immunity in many matters of international relations as it pursued the Western interests in opposition to the USSR. Had the Bay of Pigs happened in the 2000's, the international reaction would have been overwhelming. Of course this is, in part, due to the access that most of the world now has to instantaneous news sources. But even accounting for that, the US does not have the power that it once did, as there is no longer and opponent or an other. Which goes to show that winning a prolonged conflict can, in reality, decrease the power of another state.
Although not the crux of your post, I think you make an important link between globalization and a diversification of power. The spread of international norms, the rise of global institutions, the instantaneous flow of information, all appear to reduce the world's reliance and subordination to hegemonic powers. An interesting perspective on this evolution is offered by Weiss, Linda. "Globalization and state power." Development and Society 29, no. 1 (2000): 1-15.
ReplyDeleteChelsey - very interesting post. To go off of what you were saying about the Bay of Pigs and how the global reaction to it would be very different if it happened today, I think 9/11 is an interesting showcase of how Americans perceive U.S. power. We have historically been physically insulated and the "attack on American soil" sound byte has been played and replayed since it happened. We perceived ourselves as invulnerable, but how vulnerable are we to "powers" abroad that do not care very much about retribution?
ReplyDelete