Potential Challengers to American Primacy

The most obvious competitor presently capable of challenging U.S. primacy is the European Union. The E.U., although not hostile toward the U.S. or its interests, is capable on multiple levels of challenging the strength of the American monolith. More so than all other potential competitors, and possibly those competitors combined, the E.U. has wealth. Wealth is a necessity if a state or group of states wants to be strong in any worthy endeavor. Without sufficient capital, no other aspect of interstate relations can flourish. Insufficient capital will undermine any state's cross border relations but in a competition for the title of global hegemon, a state must be capable of competing monetarily with the one which holds that position.

Monetarily, the E.U. is really the only potential competitor which can come close to challenging the U.S. (Art 2003, 242). Although the E.U. boasted the world's largest GDP in 2008 at $14.94 trillion U.S. dollars (PPP) (the U.S. 2008 GDP was slightly less at $14.44 trillion) (CIA World Factbook), it is far from certain that the entity as a whole is capable of harnessing that GDP in order to make a credible challenge to American global dominance. Inasmuch as the E.U. is a work in progress and seems to be in the process of working out innumerable kinks in its overall existence, there is a great deal of unknown in terms of E.U. capability across the board. Indeed it seems a little premature to even calculate an E.U. GDP since many of its member states’ citizens have yet to identify themselves first as E.U. members rather than their own nationalities.

With the potential to rival the U.S. monetarily, the E.U. is on fertile ground to challenge the U.S. for military supremacy. According to Art, military equality requires little more than a comparable military; comparable in size, ground, sea, and air assets, technological advancement, etc. By this standard, according to Art, no other state actor has the potential to rival American military supremacy over the next few decades but the E.U. Presently the E.U. has 27 member states with 3 negotiating entry (Europa), and a population of 491.5 million (CIA World Factbook). In conjunction with its monetary capacity, the E.U. could probably produce a military to rival that of the U.S. However, the advantage the U.S. has in this regard is that it has been producing superior military capability for two full generations, whereas, other than a piece-meal, patchwork military with units thrown in from various states within the E.U., the E.U. would need many years to produce a uniquely European Union military capable of rivaling that of the U.S. on the battlefield. It is problematic in many ways to believe that the piece-meal strategy of military building would be an efficient and effective answer to American military hegemony (Art 2003, 243).

The other potential rivals for American hegemony would be China and Russia, likely in that order. These two states have unique problems in such an ambition. China's military infrastructure and tradition is seriously lacking in comparison to that of the U.S. China would rely almost entirely on a consistently increasing GDP at a rate of 7 percent per annum to match American might within three decades. Without said increase, China may never obtain parity with the U.S. Russia, on the other hand, has the infrastructure and tradition in place to potentially rival the U.S. as a global power, but that infrastructure and tradition is badly deteriorated and out of date, and it would likely take a few decades to upgrade and retrench that military prowess to enable a competent rivalry with the U.S. In either case, America seems firmly entrenched as the singular global power for at least two decades and probably three (Art 2003, 243-244).

The E.U. and the U.S. have a uniquely intertwined history and culture. As a result, it would be unlikely that the two would ever be at military odds with each other, but rather, should the E.U. develop a comparable military might to that of the U.S., the two would in all probability, dominate the world together in a co-equal partnership, with cooperation much like that seen in NATO. The strength of the E.U. is an asset to America and the strength of America is an asset to the E.U. It would be in America's best interests for the E.U. to develop into a formidable competitor in the modern world.


Art, Robert J. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press. 2003.

Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/candidate_countries/index_en.htm. (accessed December 13, 2009)

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html (accessed December 14, 2009).

Europa: The EU at a Glance. http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/index_en.htm (accessed Decmeber 13, 2009).

Humanitarian Intervention

Approval of any major action taken by the United Nations must be given by the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have the ability to veto any course of action voted upon by the council. As a result, the bureaucracy within the council virtually neuters its ability to take quick, decisive action. Article II basically states that no member state can take any action within or against any other state without the approval of the UN.

In some cases, member states have been compelled to circumvent the UN and its bureaucracy laden structure in order to accomplish meaningful humanitarian missions. A perfect example is the war in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council (Russia and China) blocked any attempt by the other powers to prevent a repetition of the 1995 Bosnia genocide. Once again, the Christian Serbs were setting out to cleanse the former Yugoslavia by getting rid of the Muslim Albanian Kosovars. Following the botched attempt by the UN at “Peacekeeping” in Bosnia, the western powers on the UN Security Council flanked the UN by engaging in Kosovo by way of NATO, the consequential trans-Atlantic military alliance.

The gamut of problems which fall under the umbrella of humanitarian crisis is extensive, ranging from mere food aid for disaster relief, to military intervention to prevent or halt genocide. The military end of the gamut is the more controversial within the UN and has a tendency to cause strife between member states.

The moral dilemma between engaging in a humanitarian crisis and ignoring it is more complex than could be covered in multiple volumes. However, the west, due to its adherence to a “superior moral compass”, has typically engaged or considered engaging in various types of humanitarian crises in order to prevent or lessen the damage caused thereby. The totalitarian history of the west’s Asian counterparts seems to lean Russia and China away from humanitarian causes.

In democratic societies, the danger of intervening is that the citizenry is typically not very keen on seeing body bags come home in exchange for humanitarian benefit in some far off land. Inasmuch as the people hold the ultimate power in a democracy, elected officials are likely more willing to listen to popular opinion and therefore less likely to take risks which would have little political value.

The dilemma lies in the moral compass. It’s obvious that it would be morally commendable to intervene in some humanitarian crisis if the cost was zero, and most Americans would probably agree. But when the perceived costs of that intervention exceed its perceived value to the public, even if the costs might be well worth the outcome to a benefitted group, officials are likely to steer away from committing to it. The advantage to elected officials in a UN intervention, rather than a unilateral one, is that they can take credit if it goes well, but shrug it off on the UN if it doesn’t. If things had gone badly wrong in Kosovo, President Clinton would have heard about it in a bad way.

A major complication with circumventing the UN, as in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, is that other states, member and non-member alike, may then use that action as justification and precedent in performing their own unilateral action. Russia may easily have used that very case when it invaded Georgia in 2008. This principle applies to humanitarian intervention as easily as military endeavors. China could easily invade a neighbor on humanitarian grounds using the precedent established by NATO in Kosovo. The advantage NATO has in this instance is that NATO is a broad coalition of numerous nations. The problem is that unilateral action undermines the international order established within the UN. If states rampantly disregard the principles of the UN, it might as well not exist.

Terms You'll Want to Know for the 2008 Presidential Election

Affirmative Action: Actions taken by the government or some private entity to counteract the results of past discrimination in social, economic and educational arenas. For example, If a person owns a business in a largely minority town and everyone that works for that person is caucasian, he/she could be prosecuted for not having a balance of employees at least somewhat reflective of the local demographic.

ANWR (Ann-waar) – Alaska National Wildlife Refuge: The area along Alaska’s northern coastal plain where a mother load of oil is waiting to be harvested. A huge debate rages between environmentalists on the left and "Big Oil" men on the right about whether or not to open the pristine nature reserve to oil drilling and development.

CAFE (Kaff-ee) – Corporate Average Fuel Economy: MPG. The standard the federal government uses to insure conservative fuel consumption in passenger cars and light trucks.

CAFTA (Kaff-ta) – Central American Free Trade Agreement: A free trade agreement between Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.

Charter School: A school funded by tax dollars but which is exempt from abiding by regulations and standards which govern ordinary public schools. Charter schools are often regulated by a board of parents and do not necessarily require a teacher to have a degree associated with the field in which they teach, and sometimes, don't require a degree at all.

CNTBT – Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: A treaty between 44 nations which, at the time of its inception, possessed either nuclear weapons or nuclear energy capability. It contains a comprehensive ban on nuclear detonations. Created in 1996, this treaty has still not been ratified by several participating states, and therefore is of no effect to any. The treaty will take effect 180 days following the ratification of the last participant.

FTA – Free Trade Agreement: An agreement between two or more states (countries) outlining the basis on which they will trade for each other’s goods and services at no cost, i.e. no tariffs, border fees, or any other type of non-tariff barrier.

GATT (Gatt) – General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Predecessor to the WTO. A loosely constructed agreement between many states (countries) founded on principles of free, or quazi free, trade, monetary policy, economic security, etc. GATT was intended to counteract the effects of protectionism and depression which followed the stock market crash of 1929 and the economic problems created by WWII.

HMO – Health Maintenance Organization: Any number of health service providers which are not insurance companies. An HMO is frequently a conglomerate of doctors, hospitals, and health care providers that band together to provide strength in numbers.

Kyoto Protocol: An amendment to the U.N. Convention on Climate Change which sets forth mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol must be ratified by member states. Many states already abide by the restrictions but many others don’t. Some member states haven’t ratified it but still abide by the restrictions.

Medicaid: A federally subsidized program intended to provide medical care to the poor, to those who do not qualify for Medicare, and to those who can’t otherwise afford health care.

Medicare: A federally subsidized program intended to provide medical care to the disabled and the elderly who can’t otherwise afford health care.

NAFTA (Naff-ta) – North American Free Trade Agreement: The free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. It guarantees the free trade of goods and investment between these states without any restriction by means of tariffs or other non-tariff barriers.

NATO (Nay-toe) – North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 26 member countries including Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Originally began as a hedge against hostile Soviet action following WWII. Since the 1990s it has become more a mini-military-UN.

OEF – Operation Enduring Freedom: The official name of “The War in Afghanistan”.

Off-shore Company: A company which sets up its base of operations in a country which does not extensively tax said company. That company then does a majority of its business in a different country (the United States). That way, all that income will be taxed based on where it has its base of operations and the company avoids paying the high taxes of the country where it does the majority of its business. Often the company’s base of operations office is no more than a hole in the wall but because it calls that place its base of operations it gets to avoid all the taxation associated with the country where it does most of its business. In these cases, most of the operations occur in the country of business.

OIF – Operation Iraqi Freedom: The official name of “The Iraq War”.

OPEC (O-peck) – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries: Members include Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. OPEC is an oil cartel which has a large impact on the price of oil due to its large market share.

PAC (Pak) – Political Action Committee: A political group not directly associated with a political party but with some special interest group, such as educators or farm workers. A PAC raises money for and endorses specific political candidates for public office. Many politicians operate PACs as well and raise money that way for their own political purposes. These PACs will not only donate to their own campaigns but to their political allies as well.

Pork (Barrel): Spending by the government that is of little use to anyone, anywhere except in a very localized municipality somewhere. For example, some congressperson wants money to restore a deteriorating library in a politically important town in his/her constituency. Every congressperson has one (a pork project) and nobody wants theirs to be eliminated so they all vote for everyone else’s in order to keep their own. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Tit-for-tat. Quid-pro-quo. None of it is good for the nation as a whole and a huge majority of it should be dealt with by the local authorities and local tax dollars, but since politicians generally lack integrity, they choose to do what is best for them rather than what is best for the United States as a whole.

SDI – Strategic Defense Initiative: Sometimes called Star Wars, sometimes called Missile defense. The not yet fully developed or reliable concept of shooting down incoming missiles using modified Patriot type missiles. The concept requires very advanced identification, tracking, and targeting systems that are not yet more than 50% reliable in test runs. The program is very expensive and whether it is worth the expense is much debated since there are only a few remaining nations that have the ability to launch a missile at the United States.

Soft Money: Money contributed to political parties to finance party operations but not to support specific candidates for public office. Often used as an umbrella term encompassing any money contributed to candidates for public office which is ethically questionable in origin and purpose. For example, a Senator from Kansas who perpetually favors oil drilling in ANWR receiving large campaign contributions from wealthy oil companies, or a Senator from Wyoming receiving large contributions from the NRA (National Rifle Association) who consistently favors unfettered gun access.

U.N. – United Nations: 192 Member States. Headed by the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, of South Korea. World security stops with the Security Council, a board with 5 permanent members which include the United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Russia, and 10 rotating seats which are elected by the U.N. General Assembly for 2 year terms, 5 of which are replaced annually.

Vouchers: Money given to parents by the government to enable them to send their children to a school of their choice, rather than to the public school which they would ordinarily attend. The debate is over whether the money would be better spent improving the existing public education system.

WTO – World Trade Organization: The successor organization of GATT (GATT was only an agreement, this is an actual organization). The WTO has 150 member states and promotes free and fair trade on a global scale. The WTO is often associated with globalization, the ideal being a world where no tariffs exist, nor non-tariff barriers. The WTO has been the brunt of many protest campaigns aimed at protectionism and protecting local and regional trade. In many instances free trade hurts local economies as that business can be obtained for less somewhere else in the world. Many local economies have been and will be hurt by globalization and the WTO. Others will be greatly benefited. The term comparative advantage is critical. Comparative advantage is the idea that each area should produce what it is most efficient at producing, and buy everything else from those who are best at producing everything else.