The author of “America didn’t decline. It went global.”, Sean Starrs, argues that although USA seems to have lost their control over other states, they are actually learning to exert their power in a less obvious and more discrete way. Using concrete evidence from statistics published by reliable sources, Starrs shows that although rapidly growing countries in Asia, especially China, is creating and exporting much more goods compared to the United States, the US owns profit shares of a much larger percentage than all the other countries. As he mentions in his article, he organized the world’s top 20 organizations into 25 different sectors and of those 25 sectors, in 18 of them, US has leading profit shares of up to 38% or more and 13 of them US owns over half. The high percentage of shares means that the more China makes money from creating these goods, so does the United States. China may be leading in exporting electronics or be the largest PC market in the world, but US owns 84% of the profit share for computer hardware and software. In short, what Starrs is trying to say is that even though US is no longer exerting direct controls to many places it used to and even though it seems like rapidly developing places such as India or China are producing more and more products each year, the US is the puppet master behind the scenes. It makes money from the massive production of goods all over Asia.
On the other hand, author of “What Happened to Imperialism”, Tom Engelhardt, believes that US is a waning super power as shown by recent events in the past decade. Engelhardt complains that wherever US brings its military “might” it only results in disaster and when they leave, they leave it in chaos. He then proceeds to question the right of US to attempt to rule over other nations as US itself is riddled with social problems. Although money flows into US like a tidal wave bombarding the beach, it goes largely to the top 1% of the population. This means that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the middle class slowly disappears. His final nail in the coffin is his attack on the ambition of the US military. When George Bush was first elected and before the 9/11 incident, Engelhardt claims the president had already planned on letting their military “loose”. His use of the word “loose” suggests his belief that the military under Bush’s administration would be like a war hound, rampaging through the field without control and without concern of who or what gets ripped apart. Although Bush didn’t release his dogs of war to cause chaos in the world, Engelhardt makes a fair point as to his war against Iraq and his attempt to rid Afghanistan from the Taliban regime as part of his war on terror.
Although it seems the two, Starrs and Engelhardt, have very different views on the grip US has on the rest of the world in the future, there is one point the two can both agree on. That is of course ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has been the world’s sole superpower, a hegemon in the world society, and whether it is gaining or losing its control, it will continue to be on the top for at least the next decade. As for the first time in at least one century, a superpower, US, doesn’t have a substantial competitor. The last time was perhaps during imperial England when the small island kingdom controlled one-sixth of the world and it had to take two world wars to tear the world power down.
I myself believe that the world of the 21st century will be a unipolar one. However, we are only in the first 14 years of our century and there is still much to be seen and determined. I believe the next hundred years will still be dominated by the US because although China and India are predicted and very likely be far in front of US when it comes to annual GDP by the year 2050, there are many more factors to take into consideration. For one, a country is only as strong as its people. For US, the living standards have been relatively high for the past decades. The country as a whole is also relatively unified with minor complaints and very few major revolts on the government’s policy. China, on the other hand, to power their growing economy and continue to manufacture in large amounts, has low average pay, its people live in poor environments, some even in slums. People aren’t always happy the majority of the time in China and the air, water, and land pollutions are dreadful. The country as a whole includes many ethnic groups and isn’t unified. For example, the Uyghur people are always causing major problems in West China, and the military would have to go in and they usually slaughter many people. Finally, the military might of US is leaps and bounds ahead of China. China may have the largest standing army, US is constantly in the front of military technologies and keeps on innovating. For China to resolve the issues above and catch up with US is simply not feasible within the next hundred years. Russia, a long time US military competitor, and still is, simply does not have the economic power. Albeit, they might have a strong military and their people is one and adores their nation, especially their leaders (part of their culture/history), cannot fund or survive a long term war with US. As mentioned before, however, there is still much to be seen. A lot more evidence still needs to be uncovered. There are many more global forces in play that will cause huge impacts in the future for a solid answer be given. For example, as human increases their demand on natural resources, problems such as who will get the last scrap of oil, will arise. China, an extremely fossil fuel dependant state will fall fast and far. Their economy will plummet to the depths of no return. With no money going in, and a huge population to feed, they will result in anarchy. I personally think a certain type of unipolar world is perhaps better than a multipolar one. With more than one superpower, as seen in the past, it will result in aggression and serious tension. This tension was at its most in the Cold War when the two world powers—US and Soviet Union— nearly sparked a nuclear war. The same type of conflict happened in World War I when the Austrian-sided Prussia and the Russian-sided England started an all-out war due to heightened tensions. This is largely because both sides want supremacy. They want to be the model for the top tier, one that others cannot reach. In a unipolar world, that has already happened. However, that does not allow that particular country to do as it wishes. Although it will have its clear advantages and be able to control other states indirectly, it has certain rules and regulations is has to follow. Much like the US right now, the hegemon cannot randomly wage wars without permission, or else it will result in resentment and loss of confidence to the leader states. This is shown when US invaded Iraq without Security Council permission.