Is America a superpower, or just a great power? It certainly dominates other states in its naval might, as this image of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier demonstrates. The UK, by contrast, has 0 aircraft carriers.
A great power is a political entity which
exercises significant international influence and military strength. Within a
given system of polities, great powers collectively possess a near monopoly of
politico-military muscle. Traditionally, the great powers of the European
states system set the rules by which international relations were to be
managed. For instance, following the Thirty Years War a series of treaties
signed by great powers in Westphalia set down the rules of the road for great
and not-so-great powers alike. Similarly, the War of the Seventh Coalition
concluded in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna, which arranged a new set of
rules by which international society was to be organised. After 1919, the
victorious great powers – France, Britain and the United States – drew up
another set of rules. Therefore, great powers, as well as possessing a monopoly
over hard power, which can be used
militarily, also possess a substantial amount of soft power, or the economic, diplomatic and persuasive ability to
influence the behaviour of other states. Soft power may be exercised through,
amongst other things, drafting and signing important treaties.
A superpower, however, does not tend to
share power so diversely. Whilst a given states system may have up to 20 great
powers (as is the case with the G20 in the modern states system), there will
only tend to be one or two superpowers. Generally, one superpower will tend to
dominate a system – if, that is, superpowers exist at all. This single
superpower may incorporate other states into its own imperium or, at the very
least, ‘sphere of influence’. However, as was the case during the Cold War,
there may be two superpowers. A superpower, therefore, is a transcendent power
on the world stage.
Nevertheless,
just as different great powers may have different areas of expertise, so may
different superpowers have different areas in which they exercise hegemony, or
dominance. For instance, it is arguable that China is currently just an
economic – rather than a politico-military – superpower. It is the largest emitter
of carbon dioxide and has the second largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for a
single-state entity, standing at $11.2. Although this lags behind the European
Union’s GDP of $16.4T, the EU is a multistate entity, and thus does not have as
much political clout as China, which has a permanent seat at the UN Security
Council. Nevertheless, both China and the EU have small economies in comparison
with the US, which has a GDP of $18.6T.
The
US, moreover, is perhaps the only all-round superpower in 2017. Whilst the Cold
War featured a clash between two superpowers
- the US and the USSR – today only the US controls its region of the
world. Therefore, the US is, to use John Mearsheimer’s term, the only ‘regional
hegemon’ on Earth. Whilst the Cold War was bipolar, to some extent America’s
superpower status has shifted the world towards an era of unipolarity, where
only one power is dominant. But America’s superpower status should not be
exaggerated. Admittedly, in 2014 its economy amounted to nearly a quarter of
global GDP and it spent $596B on defence on 2015, which was more than double
China’s total of $215B. Nevertheless, even if it is a global superpower, the US is certainly not a global hegemon. To be a
hegemon, as Mearsheimer and R. Harrison Wagner acknowledge, America would need
to be able to defeat any combination of other powers in a given confrontation.
But as its military spending in 2014 amounted to only 43% of the global total,
this would not be enough to defeat all other states combined. Perhaps, therefore, the US remains a modest superpower,
without the capacity to exercise total global dominance. Far from it: the US
was unable to stop Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, as well as the
seizure of Mosul by so-called Islamic State three months later.
Nevertheless,
the global reach of the US, although not characteristic of a global hegemon, is
certainly characteristic of a superpower. Whilst America’s soft power has
declined – particularly following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris
climate accord on 1 June 2017 – its hard power remains intact. After the Syrian
government launched the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on 4 April 2017, the US
launched a Thomahawk cruise missile strike three days later. Syria has not
dared to launch any chemical attacks since. Thus the US is capable of using
targeted unilateral force with devastating effect.
On balance, therefore, the US remains a superpower to this day. But it nevertheless ‘has been in a state of almost continuous relative decline since the end of World War II’ (Antony Best et al, 2015). It is certainly a great power, and retains its superpower status thanks to its being ahead of any other state in crude economic, political and military terms. Nevertheless, in none of these areas does it exercise hegemony. Even America’s status as the world’s only regional hegemon may soon be cast away by a resurgent Middle Kingdom. America may be a superpower, but it is far from an unlimited one.
On balance, therefore, the US remains a superpower to this day. But it nevertheless ‘has been in a state of almost continuous relative decline since the end of World War II’ (Antony Best et al, 2015). It is certainly a great power, and retains its superpower status thanks to its being ahead of any other state in crude economic, political and military terms. Nevertheless, in none of these areas does it exercise hegemony. Even America’s status as the world’s only regional hegemon may soon be cast away by a resurgent Middle Kingdom. America may be a superpower, but it is far from an unlimited one.