Two Paths: The Choice between Global Hegemony and Mutual Cooperation

The upcoming election results are important not only for American citizens but also for countless people around the world. Considering the economic and military power of the United States and the eagerness of its political establishment to play the role of a world leader in the currently unstable international climate, more and more renowned experts state the election will also touch upon the existential question of war and peace.

Many of them don’t hide whom they prefer. For example, in the article “How Hegemony Ends: The Unraveling of American Power,” published in Foreign Affairs, professors Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nexon express profound nostalgia for the good old days of a unipolar world headed by America and call for the restoration of the old order by rejecting President Donald Trump and voting for Joe Biden.

Getting your own house in order is good advice, for America can hardly claim to be a world leader when a rather dark series of events inside the country is on public display. However, the idea that the revival of American hegemony is linked to the removal of Trump is certainly an illusion, writes Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His article, “Present at the Disruption: How Trump Unmade U.S. Foreign Policy,” speaks about the greatness of neoliberalism until the “failure” of 2016, that is, Trump’s victory. According to Haass, it turns out that America’s achievements during its period of world leadership include George W. Bush and Barack Obama initiating wars in the Middle East and North Africa, a failed policy of regime change, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of refugees and trillions of dollars spent in vain.

Is it unclear how this “status quo,” which regulated the world until 2016, serves the interests of the USA and all mankind? And is Biden the model that will put an end to the “darkness of Trump” and restore America’s greatness, once again permitting it to project power and global standards of conduct for all countries of the world?

Here are some of Biden’s foreign policy “achievements” in the 47 years he has been in office. As a senator in October 2002, he voted for the war in Iraq, which was one of the most disastrous decisions in U.S. history. As vice president during the Obama administration, Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became strong supporters of Libya’s destruction through “humane bombings” and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. On behalf of Obama, Biden also oversaw Ukraine during and after the Washington-backed Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014. As a result, this country with a strong industrial and agricultural base became the poorest in Europe. But that did not hinder Biden’s son, Hunter, from using the name and status of his father to earn millions of dollars as a board member of one of the most corrupt Ukrainian natural gas companies: Burisma.

For proponents of hegemony, though, Ukraine’s transformation into an anti-Russian zone of chaos can be considered an achievement, at the cost of ripping centuries-old family, religious and economic ties between the two Slavic peoples. In this case, it is about the philosophy “divide et impera,” or divide and conquer, an ancient tactic used by empires seeking to maintain their dominance over weaker countries and clusters of subjects.

However, history shows that although this time tested tactic sometimes brings short-term benefits, examples of empires that have fallen serve as permanent reminders that they do not contribute to long-term success.

Meanwhile, there is a more attractive geopolitical option for everyone, writes Samuel Zipp of Brown University. In the article, “The Postwar Global Order that Never Happened,” Zipp familiarizes readers with the ideas of President Franklin Roosevelt and his closest adviser, Republican leader, Wendell Willkie. Both leaders, who certainly engaged in strategic thinking, planned to restructure the world’s political and financial system after the end of WWII with the efforts of the USA, the USSR and China. Roosevelt’s untimely death did not allow for the implementation of these ideas, but it would be possible to return to their discussion at the upcoming 75th anniversary session of the U.N. General Assembly. Moreover, the replacement of the communist USSR with capitalist Russia removes some of the contradictions which initially existed in this initiative.

In his first presidential campaign, Trump continually resented the actions of his predecessors, Bush and Obama, for their foreign policy ventures, said that he was not going to be the president of the whole world, and promised to end an era of endless wars.

Unfortunately, due to fierce opposition by the establishment, the president was unable to fulfill his promises; but from his supporters’ perspective, there is a chance that he will be able to do so in his second term when he will be less subject to pressure.

America now faces a crucial choice between a policy of cooperation with other countries, including Russia and China, and a return to the ideas of hegemony even though its short era cannot return.