Muppidi comes off strong with a negative sentiment towards the colonial influences of the Bush Administration in the first portion of his article. He refers to Mallaby's justification of "neoimperialism" and Ikenberry's critique of the Bush adminitsration's "imperial ambition" to further this sentiment. He also claims that Mallaby's perspective is concerned very little with the right of or costs to the poor, and that both authors claim that there is governance without voice.
While I agree more with Mallaby in that the US stepped into a leading role to to guide failed states rather than Ikenberry's theory of imperial ambitions, I don't think that it is fair to portray the US in such a negative manner. Taking a step back from the US example and looking at systemic qualities, one could recognize the benefits of a hegemonic system. In that sort of a system, the hegemony (the US) is forced to take on excessive burdens (ie. financial and military) in promoting global stability for others. In this capacity, it betters its own economic and political powers, but with the extra costs it takes on, it betters the positions of other states at a quicker rate, allowing them to catch up (hegemonic stability theory). Muppidi's focus in all instances, however, seems to discount any burden that must be taken on by this imperial power. The US has in many instances taken on and enjoyed a leading, policing role in the global context, but this role hasn't come without a price. There are costs, such as with the war on terror, that lie primarily with the US. Meanwhile, other actors have the luxury to stand back and focus on other domestic problems. I'm not saying that US intentions are always benign, and at times, imperial ambitions do come into play, but is it really fair to view the US position in such a negative, authoritative light?
There will always be those who gain less or suffer from a particular power structure, such as the poor, but this is not an imperial goal of the US. Responsibility as a leading power to consider all others does exist, but it is impossible to accommodate all equally. It is difficult to say whether a system better than this "neoimperial" system exists -- one where there can still be order with a greater voice from all actors and a lack of imperial global governance.
Disclaimer: Some of the words were cut off in the process of being copied, so I can't be entirely sure that I got all of the right concepts from the reading.
2 comments:
Do you think that Muppidi would have a different view of US hegemony pre-2001 (ie. prior to Bush's presidency)?
I think that Muppidi's focus overall was on the underlying imperialistic qualities that the US has portrayed since the days of the Monroe Doctrine. The Bush presidency has exacerbated these qualities and made them much more public and easily dislikable by other nations. Prior to the Bush administration, it would be harder for Muppidi to publicly make such imperial accusations, but it would still be possible. Actions did exist in that time period that gave the US a greater political standing, and it would be possible, though not as publicly acceptable, for him to argue that it was the cause of imperial ambitions on the part of the US.
Post a Comment