Originally posted by chappy:
cwu girl- i didnt mean to imply that hegemony is an economic subject . you are right that hegemonic is usually refering to leadership or dominance over friends, neighbor states, or allies but i dont think that former hegemonies or future ones will be best for the general population of our planets future. in essence we will be marketing ourselves as the "benevolent dictator" of the planet and the only thing that will change our position is for someone to develope a greater military and therefore become the hegemonic presence. we are rapidly losing our economic clout and it is know that india will have an economy much larger than ours in 10-15 years. we dont need more arms races. especially now that it is clear how dangerouse and cheap chem and bio weapons are and the invitation this gives small nations to instantly put themselves on the same plane militarilly as us. thats why koreas nuclear program is so scary. In short- I dont think that we will be able to rely upon hegemony as much as we think in such a rapidly changing world. after all... all the military power in the world (hegemony) did not stop sept. 11
Chappy, I'd be MUCH less worried about India than China.... Give it 7-10 years, they'll exceed our economy. However, their strength, I think is misleading for while they have a huge amount of people power, the lack technology. As we enter the next wave of economic development, I think their lagging will have them remaining in 2nd place. Plus, they're profoundly flawed governmental model could shatter their economic success if a significant middle class or technocrat class begins to ask for a say in policy making.
Hegemonies come and go. We're trying to establish and maintain a Pax Americanas in the same way the Brits and Romans did before us. They fell eventually... I don't think its our time yet, however. We're not invincible, but we're not out.
Previous Topic
Index
