Replacing The Hegemon

[toolboxnj]

The Hegemon is the nation in the International System that has the most power among the Great Powers; this nation sets the rules for the International System, as the United States did at the end of World War II (setting up the UN and NATO, for example). A Great Power is a nation that can challenge the Hegemon, and is generally a regional power. Currently, the Hegemon is the United States - This is fact and cannot be disputed.

 

But, since most on the board dislike the United States being in the Hegemonic position, which of the Great Powers would you like to see replace it? This list is not mine, but rather the scholarly accepted list, although you can make a case for another if you'd like.

 

Great Powers:

 

China

Japan

France

UK

Germany

Brazil (disputed)

India (disputed)

Russia

Edited January 4, 2005 by toolboxnj

[no yu begin wher i end]

I wouldn't pick any country to be a Hegemon. Why should one country get to have power over everyone else? I'd rather everyone be on an equal footing in the world.

[saturnine]

germany.. they seem to be the most sincere of all the countries on that list

[toolboxnj]

I wouldn't pick any country to be a Hegemon. Why should one country get to have power over everyone else? I'd rather everyone be on an equal footing in the world.

The Hegemon doesn't have power over everyone else. It is simply the nation with the most power in the system.

 

What you are refering to is called a "Preponderance of Power", which means that a state has more power than all others combined. This is a rare and unsustainable occurance, but it did happen for a brief time after the United States emerged unscathed from a war that ravaged the world. It did not last long, though, since Europe used the markets to get back on their feet and Russia had the nuke.

 

Please answer the question, because I think it's a good one. If not, make your own thread.

 

germany.. they seem to be the most sincere of all the countries on that list

 

Germany, a nation that provoked two world wars in the 20th century that killed tens of millions of people? Also, there is an element of exclusionism that Germans tend to have. It's no coincidence that the massacre of millions of Jews and non-blood citizens occured in Germany, a nation which historically views blood and race important to citizenship just as France hold the opposite opinion (just look at their processes for becoming a citizen and studies on nationalism in Europe).

Edited January 4, 2005 by toolboxnj

[saturnine]

Germany, a nation that provoked two world wars in the 20th century that killed tens of millions of people? Also, there is an element of exclusionism that Germans tend to have. It's no coincidence that the massacre of millions of Jews and non-blood citizens occured in Germany, a nation which historically views blood and race important to citizenship just as France hold the opposite opinion (just look at their processes for becoming a citizen and studies on nationalism in Europe).

opinions from people like you is what they've been trying to quell for the last 50 years. hitler killed jews. last i checked, hitler was dead.. and besides that, i think you'll find that 99% of germany disagrees with what happened and would like to put it behind them, except they can't because history can never be forgotten. what terrible acts has germany done since the war?

 

coincidentally, how many millions have the americans slaughtered during and since?

[toolboxnj]

Germany, a nation that provoked two world wars in the 20th century that killed tens of millions of people?  Also, there is an element of exclusionism that Germans tend to have.  It's no coincidence that the massacre of millions of Jews and non-blood citizens occured in Germany, a nation which historically views blood and race important to citizenship just as France hold the opposite opinion (just look at their  processes for becoming a citizen and studies on nationalism in Europe).

opinions from people like you is what they've been trying to quell for the last 50 years. hitler killed jews. last i checked, hitler was dead.. and besides that, i think you'll find that 99% of germany disagrees with what happened and would like to put it behind them, except they can't because history can never be forgotten. what terrible acts has germany done since the war?

 

coincidentally, how many millions have the americans slaughtered during and since?

If you can come up with stats from reliable historic researchers (ahem, not Noam Chomsky) I'll take a look at them.

 

The facts on German nationalism, though, are not disputable. Their citizenship is blood driven and exclusionary, the opposite of France which generally accepts anyone. The Holocaust, IMHO, could not occur in France which has different, more liberal nationalistic tendencies.

 

Plus, The Economist (probably a reactionary paper to those on this board) has chronicled the rise of neo-Nazi/Fascist poltical elements in Germany like the far-right NPD.

[ok_go_570]

I think that Germany is a very proud counrty. I think that germany resents its past and becasue of it has took a less notisable stance in world events. What im trying to say is that millitarily, germany is less involved than other nations. Im not saying that germany dosent have a formitable army becasue there army is historicaly one of the most powerful and well trained armys in the world. Im not sure if what ive said is compleatly right so feel free to correct me in anything thats blatently wrong.

 

Lets look at the other listed countrys.

 

CHINA:

 

China wouldent make a good Hegemon simply becasue its a dictatorship. I dont know about all of you but i wouldent want a dictatorship to be a Hegemon. There tolerance for the enviroment is very poor and there poverty rate is very high. I dont think china would do a very good job.

 

JAPAN:

 

Japan would make a good candidate becasue there not militaristic at all. They disembanded there army after World War 2 and only recently deployed troops to Iraq. Its hard to say if they would stay non-militaristic though. In order to be the Hegemon you would have to have an army thats formidable. I also feel that most Japanese resent there actions in world war 2. That was the actions of a dictatorship and we all know what happens when you speak out against a dictatorship.

 

FRANCE:

 

France wouldent make a good candidate in my opinion because there just like the United States only less powerful. There proud and would tend to do whats best for France and i feel that there mentality is to better france by any means possible. Im sure there are exceptions and ive met some very nice french citizens and this, by all means, doesnt mean all french people. Its just the general impresstion i get from that country.

 

UK:

 

I think that the UK wouldent make a good Hegemon for many of the same reasons as France. The UK has been a Hegemon before and they were very impirialistic at that time. What England has going for it is that its done a better job at seperating Church and State then the United States.

 

GERMANY:

 

Ive already talked about Germany and i feel that this is the best candidate so far in the list. I still cant help but wonder just how impirialistic they really are though.

 

BRAZIL:

 

Ive always seen Brazil as being a corrupt country with a lot of internal problems. I think that Brazil can not be the Hegemon simply becasue it cant seem to fix the problems in Brazil, let alone tackel some of the problems in the world today.

 

INDIA:

 

Indias economy is based on an agriculture. That alone says something about its GPD compared to countrys such as the United States and Japan. India has the worlds largest population and, im not sure, but i bet that over 60 percent of that population lives in Poverty. In short, Indias to poor to be the Hegemon.

 

RUSSIA:

 

Russia is still in transition from being a hardline Communist nation to a democratic, capitalist nation. I personaly dont trust Putin and think that hes trying to build a Russian sphere of influence. This leads me to belive that they would be just as, if not more, impirialistic as the United States. Russia is not a good candidate becasue of those reasons.

 

 

Out of all those nations I think Germany would be the best candidate for being the Hegemon. That dosent mean that there is a good candidate out there. I think once one nation, any nation for that matter would abuse that power and fuck up the world one way or another.

 

Again if any of my information is faulty please feel free to say so.

[ecnarf]

I don't know... give any nation global dominance, and it won't take long for them to start abusing it.

 

That said, Deutschland all the way.

[saturnine]

Germany, a nation that provoked two world wars in the 20th century that killed tens of millions of people?  Also, there is an element of exclusionism that Germans tend to have.  It's no coincidence that the massacre of millions of Jews and non-blood citizens occured in Germany, a nation which historically views blood and race important to citizenship just as France hold the opposite opinion (just look at their  processes for becoming a citizen and studies on nationalism in Europe).

opinions from people like you is what they've been trying to quell for the last 50 years. hitler killed jews. last i checked, hitler was dead.. and besides that, i think you'll find that 99% of germany disagrees with what happened and would like to put it behind them, except they can't because history can never be forgotten. what terrible acts has germany done since the war?

 

coincidentally, how many millions have the americans slaughtered during and since?

If you can come up with stats from reliable historic researchers (ahem, not Noam Chomsky) I'll take a look at them.

 

The facts on German nationalism, though, are not disputable. Their citizenship is blood driven and exclusionary, the opposite of France which generally accepts anyone. The Holocaust, IMHO, could not occur in France which has different, more liberal nationalistic tendencies.

 

Plus, The Economist (probably a reactionary paper to those on this board) has chronicled the rise of neo-Nazi/Fascist poltical elements in Germany like the far-right NPD.

atats on how germans don't want to be classified as nazis?

 

as much as you want to say germany is all those things, the US is guilty of all those characteristics. the US is full of exclusivity, egoism and arrogance.

[no yu begin wher i end]

The facts on German nationalism, though, are not disputable.  Their citizenship is blood driven and exclusionary, the opposite of France which generally accepts anyone.  The Holocaust, IMHO, could not occur in France which has different, more liberal nationalistic tendencies.

I remember a far-right party with fascist leanings landing a significant chunk of the vote in the last election there in 2002, I believe. One of their policies was to severely restrict immigration.

Edited January 5, 2005 by no yu begin wher i end

[cavalier_eternal]

why pick?

 

humanity should stop exploiting humanity. enough of this power crap. power is always abused.

[saturnine]

why pick?

 

humanity should stop exploiting humanity. enough of this power crap. power is always abused.

because that's the way hierarchys work, whether you like it or not

[MadeleineSix]

Canada. I know that wasn't an option. But I pick it anyway.

[calm2chaos]

Doesn't the Nation holding this power have to have strengths in all matters. The fact is the country that is the "SuperPower" has to be willing to jump in when there are conflicts or threats. They will be looked to for a number of different things and they need to have answers to all of them. Not to say all of those answers will be right. And third they etter have a thick skin. Because whomever it is will become global enemy number one almost immediately. You can't make everyone happy, and those that aren't get pissed.

[rmak]

Canada. The Humanitarian Superpower.

[Matt]

Canada. The Humanitarian Superpower.

Isn't Canada already the leading Middle Power? At least I think we used to be.

[Biggie]

Canada. The Humanitarian Superpower.

Isn't Canada already the leading Middle Power? At least I think we used to be.

No, Australia is probably the model middle power. Depending on how you look at it, Canada is ranked within the top 7 leading powers of the world.

[Matt]

I'm not talking about leading world powers, I'm talking about middle powers. And Canada is known for it's problem solving ability, that's where the middle power stuff comes in.

[Biggie]

Yeah, I know what you mean, and Canada isn't a middle power. It's a major world leader.

[Matt]

Canada's a middle power actually. We don't have the military to be a world power. We do have one, just not one to considered to be a world power.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Matt

[Biggie]

I disagree. Canada has had a great deal of success in using the military to acheive its goals. The Persian Gulf in 1991, the Balkans in 1993, restoring the Haitian government in 1995, defending Canada's fishing interests from Spain, Kosovo, Afghanistan... Plus, its stayed out of losing wars like Vietnam and Iraq. So, I think we're in pretty good shape.

 

EDIT: Obviously, it needs better funding. But in the current world system, Canada's military is still highly capable of getting things done.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Biggie

[rmak]

I understand that every Canadian soldier is trained to standards equivalent to US Rangers, Seals, etc. And we always defeat the americans in war games. We are highly effective.

 

But i think using our military this way would be detrimental. A disaster relief (DART) and peackeeping military is what we should have.

[ecnarf]

I disagree. Canada has had a great deal of success in using the military to acheive its goals. The Persian Gulf in 1991, the Balkans in 1993, restoring the Haitian government in 1995, defending Canada's fishing interests from Spain, Kosovo, Afghanistan... Plus, its stayed out of losing wars like Vietnam and Iraq. So, I think we're in pretty good shape.

 

EDIT: Obviously, it needs better funding. But in the current world system, Canada's military is still highly capable of getting things done.

Yes, Canada's had a lot of success with our military, and our soldiers are perhaps the finest trained in the world, but our army isn't self-sufficient. We couldn't launch our own peacekeeping mission, no matter how badly we wanted to.

 

I think it's going a bit far to say Canada ranks with the highest world powers, although we do have oil and water.

[Matt]

Canada is a middle power though, we don't use our military to push people around, and if we do, we do it jointly with others usually. We generally try to find peaceful resolutions too.

[toolboxnj]

why pick?

 

humanity should stop exploiting humanity. enough of this power crap. power is always abused.

 

Amazingly, at the current moment, the world is quite at peace. There are no Great Powers at war, and the violence has been confined to small, regional and civil conflicts. That's something called "hegemonic stablity", where the Hegemon plays cop and everyone kinda gets along for a while. I would like you to find a point in history where power was divided or fractionalized in the international system and was also at relative peace.

 

This could also be seen in the 19th century, when Great Britain was the dominant world power. There was relative world peace from the end of the Napoleanic Wars til World War I. Some think this is because of Capitalism and free-trade, and while this does have merits I give more to the fact there was a global hegemon.

 

So, to say that the world would be better off without a Hegemonic power is quite disconcerting to me.

 

And all this talk about Germany..

 

May I suggest the following: the EU has given billions of dollars in aid to the PLO and Yassar Arafat, who by all accounts is a terrorist. I'll read from the PLO's charter itself:

 

"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperial aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine" (Emphasis Mine)

 

So, it's not as if anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (I clearly recoginize the difference) has been "99%" eraticated from Germany and the greater EU populace. It doesn't take much effort to search for articles on the phemomina in Europe today.[sarcasm] It's also a good time for Germany to start a World War, eh? I mean, it's been only about sixty years since they provoked the last one. [/sarcasm]

 

Also, Canada as a global hegemon? C'mon. Perhaps I could have included it as a Great Power, but it lacks any kind of power projection to make it a serious hegemon (not Superpower or Hyperpower.. these things DO NOT exist, but are merely constructs created by second-rate political scientists). Power projection is the ability to globally assert the hard power that you have. A Blue-Water Navy is a good example of power-projection. While North Korea and Saudi Arabia may have hard power, for example (be it with nukes or oil), they have NO ability to project this power seriously.

 

Would Canada be able to send 15k Marines and the necessary Aircraft Carriers to assist with the disaster in South Asia? I think not. And, in a unrelated point, this $350mil that the US government is giving in aid does not include the millions of dollars a day in costs that the military incurs in it's assistance in delivering food ans supplies to the region.

Edited January 12, 2005 by toolboxnj