Hello everybody! Its been some time since my last blog, that huge gap was partly due to College which sucked my time like a charm this semester (I really need to review my study methods in order to save more time...), but this semester is over! So I thought about writing an "special" blog concerning a subject I didn't have the chance to work with yet, and one I couldn't have worked with as much depth without this humble, but yet insightful semester of International Relations study (undergrad) as my background.

---

Excerpt

A quick analysis on "Why is USA so different?" in the following scopes: Sociology, History, International Relations and History of the same.

Everything backed up by basic concepts of I.R theories and Huntington's thoughts.

---

USA In the international Scenario

Under the understanding of Huntington, the power in the International Scenario post-cold war is spread across the globe but concentrated in certain areas, one of which holds the most power but still is not and can not be fully Hegemonic, that's Huntington's Uni-Multipolar understanding of the I.S.

Divided in four levels: At the "bottom" you will find nations somewhat distinct from this power structure explanation, which may be important at some extent but are quite "marginal" in this sense.

At the 3rd level you have the "secondary" regional powers or minor regional powers, which are nations whose interests usually clash with States holding the 2nd level in Huntington's normative, the Nations with primary, or major, regional powers. A secondary regional power would be, for example: Colombia in relation to Venezuela, in the Maghreb region (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) Morocco in relation to Algeria, Argentina-Brazil... and so on.

The aforementioned 2nd level is consisted of Primary regional powers, or major regional powers, such as: Mexico in central America, Brazil in Latin America, Russia in the Northern Eurasia, China in the whole Eurasia itself...

And finally, the 1st level, the "Uni" part of "Uni-Multipolar", the only Superpower, USA.

As you can see, on this normative, USA stands out as the present global Superpower nation, characterized by a large area of influence and a fine balance between its hard (Military, natural resources, industrial capabilities) and soft ("Symbolic/Ideologic" power; Coca-Cola, Blue Jeans, Movie Industry and its reach...) powers. This doesn't mean USA may solve global problems and stand out in its politics all by itself, quite the contrary; isolationism actually means weakness in the contemporary international scenario and interdependence is a need, but being a Superpower means it is the only major nation on the field, in a global scale, somewhat "leading" the international relations;

The American Dollar as the "global currency", even with the rise of other global currencies (Yen, Euro..), is still extremely important for commercial relations, and this gives a clear evidence of what being a "Superpower" means: USA has its internal currency as the main global currency. Isn't that an evidence of power?

Often, when there is a relevant but still foreign regional problem, the position and views of the Superpower nation is still taken into account by different blocks, and this may even portray an indirect participation into the given subject by this Superpower nation, only because it outlined a position on a problem, even if this problem wasn't directly related to its region or its internal matters and interests on the strict sense.

---

Cold war

During the cold war you had 2 Superpower nations and their respective blocks of allies/followers, on the Bi-polar power organization: Soviet Union and United States. With the downfall of the Soviet Union you don't see the creation of a "Uni-polar" system similar to the Roman Empire, where a single "Superpower" holds all power and may take on international problems with minor to no influence from smaller power concentrations, in other words; The one and only "ruling power".

The Post-cold war scenario is quite different: There is the complexalization of the International Scenario, the arise and development of different powers, before either nonexistent or too small to be of any relevance, and even less relevance in the middle of a ideological clash between 2 Superpower nations. The end of this clash somewhat represented the start of a wave of new International Actors, which in turn increased the total "potential global power" and divided it between themselves.

Although Huntington's views only considers States, lets mix things up here and take Actors* in general into consideration.

(An International Actor is any entity playing a role into the I.Scenario in which it represents some kind of relevance - States, Multinational companies, NGO's, International Organizations such as UN, IMF)

After the clash, the standing Superpower was USA, and the end of the clash was also the end of the Bi-polar system. A Superpower and the coalitions representing these Superpowers ceased to exist in that sense; Both coalitions ceased to exist because there is no Ideological (Socialism-Capitalism) clash to justify their existence anymore, you only see very few exceptions for this today (Cuba, North Korea).

---

Hegemony

While regional Hegemony do exist, like India in south Asia and Japan in east Asia, the only Global Hegemony is United States.

And "Hegemony" carries with it a latu-sensu of dominance denoting fear, hatred and animosity.

And you have answers for dominance; The creation of the European Union is an answer itself: There you have a block of countries uniting into a single Economic block to integrate their regional Hegemony and upswing it to a bigger Global relevance. Here you may consider the New international order too, the BRICS. Yet, there is no formal "anti-american" coalition in the world.

---

A Multipolar World?

All those emerging small powers, bigger powers, coalitions and economic blocks in their different relevance and diversity present a clear evidence that we may soon find ourselves living on a Multipolar world, without the "Uni", Superpower nation, but still, with major powers spread across regions and the globe. This doesn't necessarily means the current Superpower will fade away or enter a state of decline, it is more likely to affirm it may find itself surrounded by similar "Superpowers" that will, evidently, play their roles in similar significance and then establish a strict Multipolar system, where power is spread between actors, in different ways and concentrations but never presented in "full form" by a single superpower nation.

But then...this is another distinct way to understand the basics of the International Relations...

---

Please leave your comment.

I'm open to (clever and assertive) criticism.

~Thank you for reading, Gleeok out!