| ID | 100937 |
| Title Proper | Reality check |
| Other Title Information | America's continuing pursuit of regional hegemony |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Carranza, Mario E |
| Publication | 2010. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | The comparative regional analysis of American foreign policy in the era of unipolarity provides a reality check to the academic debate on American primacy after 11 September. There is disagreement among scholars on whether a liberal or neoimperial logic of global order will emerge in the 21st century, but the debate between supporters and opponents of both logics has largely ignored South America and South Asia. Whether the United States has become the global hegemon cannot be debated in the abstract, or only in relation to the traditional areas of US dominance: Europe and East Asia. Using a neo-Gramscian definition of international hegemony the article argues that the United States exercises flexible and somewhat contested hegemonies in different parts of the world. Brazil's independent foreign policy and great power status pretensions have complicated American attempts to exercise hegemony in South America. In South Asia, India has established a strategic partnership with the United States, but its strong commitment to strategic autonomy and its penchant for an independent foreign policy may become incompatible with post-11 September American grand strategy. The comparative analysis of American policy toward both regions has important implications for international relations theory, showing the need to go beyond realist explanations in order to understand American foreign policy today. The conclusion examines alternative scenarios and policy options for the United States, arguing that a post-11 September new liberal grand bargain can only be established if the United States abandons the drive for global dominance and becomes a 'normal' great power in a genuinely multilateral framework, respecting the rules of the international society of states while listening to other voices in the planet. |
| `In' analytical Note | Contemporary Security Policy Vol. 31, No. 3; Dec 2010: p.406 - 440 |
| Journal Source | Contemporary Security Policy Vol. 31, No. 3; Dec 2010: p.406 - 440 |
| Key Words | American Foreign Folicy ; United States ; Regional Hegemony ; South America ; South Asia ; International Relations Theory |