I will discuss “Hegemony and After: What Can Be Said About the Future of American Global Leadership” by Robert O. Keohane. This article helps me understand the differences between neoliberalism and neorealism with the debate of declinism of the United States. According to Josef Joffe, declinism has been experienced by the United States because of the juxtaposition of Chinese rising power and America’s uneasiness in economy, politics, and military. However, the defensive optimism which argues the lasting value and feasibility of U.S. global leadership has appeared because of this pessimism. This article reviews and critically analyzes two antideclinists’ articles, “The World America Made” by Robert Kagan and “Power and Willpower in the American Future: Why the United States Is Not Destined to Decline” by Robert J. Lieber. Although some powerfully persuasive points about the U.S. -sponsored global order in the past, present, and future are provided by both writers, they underestimate how important multilateral institutions and material power are in global order, and are overconfident in asserting about the future. As a result, the value of their book as appraisals of current global politics is reduced.

Kagan states that without a common government to enforce rules, bargaining which is associated not only to promises but also threats influence the global order. Moreover, threats are likely to cause conflict, and international systems can manage to sustain peace for long only if the systems are dominated by a single great power. However, Keohane points out that this interpretation of world politics is conventional due to embattled iconoclasm, by ignoring the case by most of the major authors. Keohane also mentions that no data or even systematic evidence is provided by Kagan. Keohane mentions that the multilateral institutions are regarded as providers of important supports for the current global order by many intelligent commentators with examples of UN peacekeeping operations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, NATO, and the European Union. Kagan displays contempt for this view and argues that U.S. dominance is accepted by other countries because of their approvement of American value and goals and it is believed that American power is necessary to them. This is how Kagan refutes institutionalism. In my opinion, Kagan’s idea is really different from (neo)liberalist one that international organizations are crucial for international cooperation.

Keohane says that Lieber argues the same view as Kagan’s, underestimating the effectiveness of multilateralism.

This article helps me understand how (neo) liberalist ideas are not accepted by some scholars, Kagan and Lieber, and why their arguments are conventional.

Source:

Robert Keohane (2012) “Hegemony and After,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 114-118

Ayumi Hirata #41534819