From the unchallenged hegemony of the US to the multipolar world
The Nuremberg Order
In the magnificent American dramatization of the Nuremberg trials, Winners or Losers (1961), prosecutor Colonel Tad Lawson (played by Richard Widmark), having a few too many drinks while enjoying a lavish party in a city in the process of rebuilding, tells Judge Haywood (Spencer Tracy): “There's something happening with the Americans, we are not made to be occupiers. It's new for us and it doesn't suit us."
In Germany directly after the Second World War, the Americans, British, Soviets and French were protagonists of the period of the Allied occupation of Germany (1945-1949), as established by the Potsdam agreement, signed on August 3, 1945. It was in the portion of Germany occupied by the United States where Nuremberg was found, where Nazi leaders suspected of having committed crimes against peace, against humanity or war were subjected to trials. These trials (called “Nuremberg Trials” or “Nuremberg Trials”"), often a mere footnote in history books, represent a historical milestone of considerable relevance, They are one of the first manifestations of the new international order led by the United States and established after World War II.
Prosecutor Lawson's assertion about American inexperience with the occupation is not unfounded and is a direct consequence of the history of US foreign policy: The role of the United States in the international system prior to World War II was exceptionally small, especially considering that it was one of the greatest world powers since the end of the 19th century. (In 1890 the US GDP was already clearly higher than that of the United Kingdom). The United States took advantage of its geographical position far from the rest of the world powers to maintain a foreign policy of non-interventionism and isolation.
The isolationist vocation of the United States, in addition to its geography, is based on the thoughts of the fathers of the American nation. The dogma was established first by George Washington: “Our great rule with respect to foreign nations is to extend our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible”, founded on the Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address: “Peace, commerce and honorable friendship with all Nations, without entering into a burdensome alliance with any.” And, possibly, summarized in its simplest form in the Monroe Doctrine, “America for Americans.”
In this Monroe Doctrine, we already see a different perspective regarding isolationism, and possibly the first glimpse of a foreign policy as such, on the part of the United States. While isolationism continued with the Europe of the absolutist restoration, the United States did not hesitate during the 1895th century to secure its interests in the rest of the American continent through this message, which was a warning to the European colonial powers. The Monroe Doctrine was invoked for the Venezuelan Crisis of 1898, the Spanish-American War of XNUMX, the Lodge resolution of 1912…and although it may seem a contradiction with respect to the isolationist policy, it only represents a reinterpretation of it.
In accordance with the principles defended by the ideologues of isolationism, the aforementioned Thomas Jefferson he assured that “America has a Hemisphere to itself”, without making it entirely clear whether he was referring to the country or the continent. Even so, the imperial phase of the United States began to question isolationism, while reinterpreting the Monroe Doctrine. With the Roosevelt Corollary The work of John Quincy Adams was modified, the rest of the American continent (particularly Latin America) began to be considered as a territory for the US to expand its commercial interests.
Although it was increasingly challenged, isolationism (which persisted even after World War I against the wishes of President Wilson, as shown by the non-ratification of the Treaty of Versailles) remained in force well into the 20th century, when the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 showed that the United States could not guarantee its own security through isolationism, it was time to take action on the issues that were happening on the rest of the continents, joining the allied side to try to defeat the Hirohito's Japan.
The end of US isolationism had enormous consequences for the international system, metaphorically, it can only be compared to the “awakening of a giant.” Almost abruptly, the same power that stood out for its absence in the crucial events of the interwar period that led to the beginning of the Second World War, wanted to be involved in global geopolitics until its final consequences. It was one of the States protagonists of the configuration of the new international order.
For this reason, the Nuremberg trials They are a historical milestone, they symbolize the end of the international system prior to the Cold War: the leaders of those fascist regimes of the past are sentenced by the liberal and communist regimes of the future. That is to say, The new order was created in Yalta and Potsdam, but in Nuremberg there was an extraordinary cooperative effort to judge, based on the new world order that was taking shape, the remains of an old order that was already practically extinct.. This new order would be symbolized in the International Military Court and the legislation created specifically for the Nuremberg trials, given that both will be precedents for international cooperation and the values that will govern this new order (with the approval or not of the USSR).
Long live the United States of America
We can define the period between 1945 and 1950 as the beginnings of the cold war, the end of the multipolar world (absence of superpowers, there are a large number of very powerful States), to give way to The US and the USSR as the hegemons par excellence. The destruction that the Second World War meant for Europe and Asia, and the fact that the efforts of the European States focused on reconstruction allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to impose themselves as new dominant superpowers in the international system, this new panorama It would be characterized by bipolarity (two superpowers concentrate more power than the rest of the States).
The balance of power changed completely. Multipolarity was established in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna in which the European States divided their territories so that the powers of the main States were balanced. Subsequently, there were repeated Congresses in which the European powers tried to guarantee this multipolarity, thereby ensuring stability and peace on the continent. With its pluses and minuses, with its balances and imbalances The paradigm of multipolarity remained in force until the Cold War.
The bipolarity established by the Cold War was imperfect, The US always maintained a certain superiority over the Soviet Union in economic, military and influence terms, although it is true that the USSR was the only rival that could pose a real risk to the Americans.. The period of bipolarity was relatively short, it did not reach 50 years, since the USSR dissolved in 1991 and left the US as the only international superpower.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Unquestionably and globally, the United States was the hegemonic power of the International System in practically all areas. He had allies throughout the globe, The only ones who dared to question the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy and capitalist economy were the remaining states of the communist bloc, terrorist organizations or the most extreme Islamism, but at no time a State of dimensions remotely similar to those of the United States.
Given such indisputable superiority, Francis Fukuyama declared "The end of history”: history, understood as the struggle between ideologies and ways of understanding the world, has come to an end, because there is a clear winner. It is the unipolar world, the United States as the only hegemonic superpower (according to the neorealism of Kenneth Waltz) or the United States as a superpower that acts alongside other 2nd and 3rd powerser order (according to Samuel Huntington's theory of uni-multipolarity). The power of the United States was such that Yale University historian Paul Kennedy observed that this superpower at its moment of most uncontested superiority, on September 10, 2001, had even surpassed ancient Rome in terms of dominance. economic and military.
imperfect unipolarism
One way or another, what prosecutor Lawson said in Winners or Losers about the Americans - being occupiers - can also be applied to being the sole hegemon of the international system: “it doesn't work for us.” The imperfection of American leadership does not come from a lack of intention, at least historically, to exercise it, President George HW Bush himself spoke of a “new world order” based on American values: democracy, free market and rule of law, which defends peace through International Organizations in defense of global security, and where the US is the main actor, combining unilateral action with collective action. Although the end of the Cold War does not necessarily imply a change in the way the United States acts, The end of Soviet antagonism does modify the balance of power of the SI, giving the United States leeway to impose its hegemony.
This project ended up failing because the model of international action that the United States followed was designed to intervene in traditional crises between States, without taking into account that the new crises were characterized rather by being ethnic conflicts or civil wars, it did not have international actors that could be contrary to US interests, especially it did not include non-state international actors.
The inability to respond adequately to these crises and effectively ensure North American dominance in the world order is the subject of debate and controversy, authors of the Neorealist school such as the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger They attribute this failure to the American inability to establish a new global balance of powers that “preserves balance in numerous nations of the world.” The perspective of the establishment of the aforementioned “new world order” implies subscribing to the perspective of the “Grotian school” of the IR (more idealistic), far from the Hobbesian ideals (more realistic) that had characterized the foreign policy of the Cold War, particularly during the time in which Kissinger served as Secretary of State.
Kissinger argues that, although the Cold War was, in part, won by the US thanks to the primacy of Human Rights in the debate against the USSR, these moral considerations cannot be the only criterion for choosing the agents with which The new regional balances necessary for this “new global balance of powers” are built.
The best manifestation of the failure of unipolarism, and the inability of the United States to respond to regional crises that could pose a danger to international security, were the attacks of September 11, 2001, when a terrorist organization (non-state agent) led from the other side of the globe collapsed the World Trade Center (symbol of US financial leadership), damaged the Pentagon (symbol of US military supremacy) and almost did the same to the White House (symbol of US political leadership). These attacks are of extraordinary importance, and They represent a radical change in the international system, leaving the image of the US as the only superpower very damaged. Very profound and visible changes in the international performance of the United States itself.
During the Bush Administration there was a return to a realistic policy similar to that of his father, in which we saw a turnaround in foreign policy, manifested in milestones such as the denunciation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the classification of the “Axis of Evil” for Iraq, Iran and North Korea. These milestones show a shift in US foreign policy towards unilateralism and certain shades of isolationism, which clashed with the multilateralism represented by the UN (this contrast was manifested in the confrontation within the UN over the justification of the War of Iraq), which manages to put US unilateralism at bay.
The long and costly wars in the Middle East that followed 11/XNUMX have undermined the American reputation without achieving the expected achievements. Despite the unsuccessful wars and other problems of American foreign policy, this country never rejected the role of leader of the West that Bush Sr. claimed. in the aforementioned speech, despite the turn towards unilateralism. The United States not only tried to maintain military, political and economic leadership, but also tried to be the leader of globalization. Even so, while the US continued to be the richest country, having the most powerful army and the most influential culture, a block of emerging countries and economies seemed to be able to put up a long-term challenge to the (imperfect) US hegemony, something inevitable in the future. globalized world.
The history of United States in international relations is frankly fascinating, a State that tried to isolate itself from the rest in its origins but ended up being the center of world power. What is much more interesting is the future that would lie ahead for the US just after the fall of the USSR: after a few years in which it was closer than ever to being the only true superpower, 11/2008 happened, then Iraq and Afghanistan and then the XNUMX crisis.
Meanwhile A block of countries that had previously only meant cheap labor for Western companies are beginning to become rivals for the economic leadership of the United States. All of this, along with the impact of the Trump administration and, of course, COVID-19, represent a drastic change in the role that the United States plays on the international scene.
Having already explained in this article the historical international trajectory of this nation, the next one will analyze these issues with reference to the latest crucial changes in the international system as well as the future trajectory of the United States.
RRYP is an international strategy consultancy that provides different services for internationalization and business. Do we talk?
Hello! I am a jurist and internationalist, semi-finalist of the XIII San Francisco Javier Debate League, fond of debate, photography, Rubik's cubes, maps and history. From Marbella but living in Córdoba.