The book "World Out Of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy" About the Nature of Constraints on US Power, By Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth deals with the comprehensive analysis of such constrains that the U.S uses power to pursue its security interests. The two authors overturned their wisdom by depicting that, the unipolar system, in which the United States dominates in the world power scale. In connection to this, constrains that are featured din the theory of international relationships are not applicable.
As a matter of fact, the authors continue arguing that, the United State is not going to its leadership position in the near future. But, its leadership stands before a window opportunity of about twenty years or so, for reshaping the international system. Despite the fact that the primacy of America in the whole world is far much unprecedented, routinely, the analysts have stressed the limited utility that such unpreeminence hold. These two authors have looked at the arguments from each of the major theories governing international relationships. They have examined realism, institutionalism, constructivism, and liberalism. They also cover the four established external constraints on U.S. security policy--international institutions, economic interdependence, legitimacy, and balancing" (Brooks, & Wohlforth, 2008).
The prevailing point of view is that, such like external constraints conspire in one way or the other to undermine the United States values. The primacy the strictly restricts a range of policies that can be pursed by different countries. Both Brooks and Wohlforth try to depict that, in real sense, the United State security policy is not strictly restricted by the international environment. Out of balance, the World underscores urge of the whole new study agenda with the aim of understanding the contours of international politics as well as the U.S place in the world in a better position. As an effect, this essay critically Criticizes the arguments presented in the book of Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth "World Out of balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy"(Brooks, & Wohlforth, 2008), about the nature of constraints on US power.
There those who have claimed that before all, the concluding chapter in the book gives a distinction between two different forms of systematic activism that states under leadership can borrow.
The first systematic activism depends on the usage of military force, while the second form involves the changing of the global economy structure, as well as international institutions structure along with standards of legitimacy structure. The author concentration favors the second systematic activism, and does not involve in anyway the deployment or the usage of military force. To me as an individual, it is very hard to understand how this second form chosen by Brooks and Wohlforth can have the capability of contributing to imperial overstretch.
Looking at their main points that concern the financial crisis, they do not concern the policy response of the United States in anyway. But what I can see is the significant point that explains that, the crisis does not alter the fact that the United States of America leads its competitors from a very, very far pointy, and that the relative power shifts in a very slow manner. After realizing that, the United States of America is far much a head of as compared to its competitors, it then forms the basic reason that explains the conclusion that was reached by Brooks and Wohlforth. There stand was that; the United States of America will remain being the superpower.
On the other hand, I have to make it very much clear that to that, my thoughts about the Book World Out of balance: "International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy" (Brooks, & Wohlforth, 2008), about the nature of constraints on US power, just explains better about the unipolarity ending point of argument. My conscious tells me that, they also have a very a strong point when arguing about the probable implications that might results due to financial crisis on the balance of power. Due to the fact that, both interdependence and a number of different factors, the United States of America will almost come out from its wreckages, having its status of unipoplar far much intact.
From the book, it can be shown that, both Brooks and Wohlforth concentrated on the systematic activism that did not deal with the use f military force. As an effect, it concentrated more on the issues that are needed by the society in changing the "changing the structure of the global economy, international institutions, and standards of legitimacy"ÿ(Brooks, & Wohlforth, 2008). By looking at this point of concentration, they cited Robert Gilpin. On his part, Gilpin differentiated between three subjects of foreign policy, which includes the physical military control of territories. This factor depends on the impacts realized due to the behaviors of other nations], as well as the impact to the world economy.
Through this system, the authors acknowledged that United State's control over economy had increased in the salience from the development of global economy. On the other hand, what I get from their book is that, the processing of isolating economic interests from the first two first two forms of objectives. With this in mind, I can say that, the two authors meant that, the relative weight exerted by the three objectives might shift from one position to the other position, but they will continue being tethered together, as they are inseparable, they just move together.
By critically looking at this stated fact as referred to in the Book, both Brooks and Wohlforth's proposal in foreign affairs for the revision of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. To my surprise, the two authors present this as an institutional alteration. This institutional change would lead to the creation of laws that will be needed to be enforced. For the past number of couple decades, just as being the unipole, the United States has carried out a number of tests in the processes of testing itself on the factor of being the ultimate backstop against proliferation. However, the results have not been straight forward. From the bottom line, then as an individual I wonder who will be enforcing the laws.
The authors of the book proposes that, there should be a creation of an institution that will be in a position to provide nuclear aspirants with the LEU, but the same institution will be precluding them from getting enrichment capabilities that are very indigenous. The body will also be charged with the responsibility of being in the forefront in the creation of body that will not only involve NATO members, but also NATO allies. This is targeting countries like South Korea, Australia and Japan. This body on its side will be charged with the responsibility of imposing sanctions don these who violates these who engage in activities that leads to the violation of this newly formed regime.
However, I urge that, if the recent experiences can serve as any indicator of such an action, though the countries that have been listed in the book d do not belief in their interests in the imposition of very tight economic sanctions, leave a lone actions dealing with military force, in there process of stopping proliferation. As an effect, I as an individual keep on wondering how the process of creating anew body would be in a position of shifting such like countries 'desire to involve in the imposition of binding constraints on proliferation.
The issue of a primacy strategy that the concentrates on matters that concerns the enhancement of legitimacy, as well as the international institutions, does not in any way seem to be separable from the military use of power, as well as the willingness of using it. According to my own analysis, if the position of both Brook and Wohlforth proposes that the systematic activism which they keeps on favoring in the book does not in any way involve the use and deployment of military force, then I here by term it as a curious point of view indeed.
In my opinion generally, the issue of unipolarity is amongst the hottest IR theory topic, but the issue of discussing it without having any reference to the book by Brook and Wohlforth entitled the World out Of Balance, has become virtually impossible. This book provoked me as a reader to rethink about my views, and seriously engages with the realism, liberalism, as well as constructivism. The two authors gave their argument given in a nutshell is like scholar who have dealt with the above schools of thought have really underrated the ability of the United States of America, to transcend structural constraints.
On the other hand, it is as if the realists have overrated the effects of the power balance, while the liberals overrate the impacts that emanates from economic dependence as well as the international bodies. Last but not least, the constructivists on their side are overrating the constraints of legitimacy on the United States of America. This based on Brook's statement, "Because their theories ignore or misunderstand the implications of the unipolar distribution of power, scholars have generally underestimated the U.S. potential to remake the post-1991 international system" (Brooks, & Wohlforth, 2008).
Due to their argument, the issue of unipolality as said before has now spawned two major debates. It is not clear for how long the issue of unipority will come to an end. The second issue is the wonder about the security of unipolarity. The process of taking a range of commitments beyond anybody's reach is one way in which the United States of America will end up falling from being in its own league, to being just among the equals. In the recently published foreign affairs article, Brooks and Wohlforth dismissed any danger of like for instance the imbalances in the U.S, by just looking at these problems. Basing on this, other authors have admitted that "did not compose a theory of how unipolarity ends, but they seem reasonably certain that overstretch is not a concern".
Am not convinced with their work, this is because, going as per the human history, and relating it with international politics, the suggestions and conclusions are otherwise. Hubris has never been a common difficulty of individuals with the modest means. The pride that exists before Goethe fall is in most cases spawned by possession and powers. Or by following Lord Acton words that, "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Logan, 2009). On the other hand, I can view the dismissal of outstretch argument, based on the explanation given by Wohlforth in his argument that, outstretch usually leads to demise of hegemonic systems. However, the fact remains that, there exist a very big contradiction between the issues in the Book the World out of Balance, and the Bop in the history of the world. It is true that, dif unprofitable military expansion is considered as being a well nigh universal behavior that tries to give an explanation of demise of what is referred to as systemic hegemony, then it is much strange that both Brooks and Wohlforth have been just dismissive of the aspect, as they have.
In conclusion, what the two authors forgot is that, though individuals around the world might have an impression that favors the United States; it does not imply that their own government will roll and provided the U.S with everything it asks for. There are already signs their plans are facing resistance from different places in the world. For instance, India and China are not in line with the U.S proposal for the climate Change agreement. In addition, some governments are already having reservations about its strategy in the Central Asia. Making matters more worse, NATO members and allies whom Brooks and Wohlforth proposed that they have to form a union with the U.S, are doing if nothing then is much less in Afghanistan, as the U.S itself does more.
As mentioned earlier, the issue of the United States of America biting more than what it can chew, that is being in forefront of many circumstances, and in it self is very risky. This issue of balking is being used by weaker governments to prevent dominant ones like the U.S in imposing its will. There are nations which are pretending to be in compliance with the wishes of the American, but in real sense, they are just going on with their own agendas. Still on NATO countries which the Book proposes for a union, though they promised to lift up their defense efforts but still, they have never managed to do much. On the other hand, Israel promised to put a stop in the construction of settlements, but the number of illegal settlers has been rising steadily, (Logan, 2009).
May be in reality am just being nervous Nellie, or I have just fallen a victim to pundit's fallacy, where the pundits have assumptions that, the way to any political success, either international or otherwise, has to include an adoption of commentator's own policy perception. But am sure that, the dangers for systematic activism that both Brooks and Wohlforth are urging, represents a more cause for concern, as compared to what they let on.