Order, Discussion 7

In discussing order Ikenbery claims that the winning postwar state has three choices when it comes to deciding what to do with its abundance of power. The state can dominate, abandon or transform the postwar international arena. If the winning state chooses to dominate, it will use its overwhelming postwar resources to influence weak states through sanctions, trade embargo, and threat of military action. The winning nation can choose the second option and abandon the decimated postwar arena, in that case surrendering its acquired power and leaving the weaker states to fend for themselves. The third choice, considered preferable by Ikenbery, is for the winning state to transform its postwar advantages into a lasting order that might require short term sacrifice but entails long term benefit. The last option calls for the creation of intergovernmental institutions and institutionalized government by the winning state to provide legitimacy for use of their overwhelming power to dictate the rules of the new order. The winning state will “establish some measure of restraint on its own exercise of power, thereby mitigating the fears of domination” (Ikenbery, 5) of the weak states thus establishing a perception of equality. I argue that in a time of globalization winning states have only two choices. The winning state can dominate, thereby fulfilling its obligation to international community to secure order in an arena where it is the only one capable of doing so, or abandon the postwar arena and allow the conflict and instability to continue. I argue that the transformation of a postwar arena cannot take place without domination by the winning power that holds all the necessary resources. Domination through transformation or transformation through domination. Abandonment is the worst decision both for postwar weak and leading states.

The choice to abandon the postwar arena places both the stronger and the weaker state at a disadvantage. The stronger state surrenders its ability to establish hegemony, the ability to influence economic, political, diplomatic and military processes in the international arena. This places the winning postwar country at a disadvantage by preventing it from gaining back the resources and capital lost during the conflict. Furthermore, by abandoning the postwar arena the winning country runs the risk of being drawn back into a repeat conflict between the weak countries. The weaker countries are also at a disadvantage as they must now struggle with postwar conditions. The weak countries are faced with starvation, economic instability, infrastructural collapse, and political power struggle. The weak countries if left to fend for themselves will be prone to resume internal and international conflict.

Once a winning country establishes hegemony in the postwar arena, transformation and domination are synonymous with consensus and coercion respectively. While consensus is preferable of the two, it is often succeeded by coercion. In the last two-hundred years of history we have seen two examples of countries with established hegemony go from from rule by consensus to rule by coercion. The most current and applicable example is the United States. The United States was able to rule by consensus two decades after World War Two due to its economic, political, military and diplomatic superiority. As the time went on and the international arena bounced back from the chaos of two world wars, the United States was forced to use coercion to promote its national and international agenda. Across the world, the United States has hundreds of military bases and international (headquartered in U.S. and other countries) corporations that influence the economic, political, and social lives of the locals. The constant presence of a dominant country in economics, politics, social relations, diplomacy and military is a characteristic of “transformation by domination.” Ikenberry’s two choices combined into one.  

The system of creating order adopted by the United States today is the best that we were able to implement at this time. The capitalist global political economy is the result of institutionalized relations created by leading countries after the war through transformation and domination of weak states. The strong states created institutional rules between themselves and weak countries to demonstrate that limits on acquisition of power are equal for everyone. In this way the weaker countries continually perceive their gains as fair and losses as temporary. The weaker countries are made to believe that foreign investment made in the form of purchasing raw materials and cheap labor is beneficial. In retrospect, dominating countries have always looked to weaker countries for cheap and free labor.           

As Hannah mentioned in her discussion paper “The dominate state determines the structure of the system, and therefore has great power.  It favors and rewards like governments and economies within the system” but, rejects those with a different political system. In the cases where a dominant country encounters a country that stands in its way it will dominate that country through sanctions, trade embargo, and threat of military action. The military force is then used to transform the unwilling country into a comfortable place to do business.