Introduction

In today's global political landscape, there's a lot of talk about how power is shifting, especially when it comes to the United States, which has long been a major player on the world stage since the end of World War II. Many scholars are now saying that American dominance isn't what it used to be. And to add to the complexity, there's China, rising up as a potential rival to the US's position.

One big worry in all of this is the possibility of a big conflict, what's called a hegemonic war. This is when a rising power wants to change how things are globally to suit its own interests, challenging the established order, represented here by the US. However, even though the US isn't as dominant as it once was, there's a thought that a big war like this might not happen right away. The US is still a big player, and interestingly, China doesn't seem too eager to shake things up just yet.

To back up this idea, experts are looking at different theories to explain why a major war isn't likely right now. By looking at these different viewpoints, we can get a better understanding of how power works in the world and how countries interact with each other on the global stage. It's a complicated situation, but by exploring these ideas, we might find some clues about what could happen next as things continue to change.

Understanding Structural Realism and Power Dynamics

Kenneth Waltz, a key figure in the school of neorealism, believes that the end of the Cold War has shaken up global politics in a big way. He thinks that the world, once split between two major powers, is now dominated by the United States alone, but this situation won't last forever. According to Waltz, whenever there's a big change like this in the world, countries start acting differently, regardless of how careful the big guy, in this case, the US, tries to be. He argues that all countries have a natural tendency to be wary of powerful nations and try to keep them in check – it's just human nature.

To explain this idea, Waltz talks about the Balance of Power theory. Basically, in the chaotic world of international politics, every country has to look out for itself to survive. So, to make sure no one country gets too powerful and takes over the world, countries team up or work against the strongest one.

As the United States loses some of its relative power, there's a chance that we could see a return to a bipolar world, where the US and China are the two big players, like during the

Cold War. Waltz actually thinks this kind of setup is the most stable. So, if the US and China keep each other in check, it could help keep things peaceful on a global scale, preventing any major conflicts from breaking out.

Understanding the Social Influence of Hegemonic Power

Many scholars commonly believe that dominant powers maintain control over other states through a combination of threats and rewards. However, a different perspective emerges from the work of scholars like Ikenberry and Kupchan. They suggest that hegemonic powers, in addition to their material strength, also possess a remarkable ability to shape the beliefs and behaviors of other states through a process known as socialization.

This socialization process involves the dissemination of the hegemon's vision of international order, not just through force or incentives, but through the promotion of norms and values. Elite groups in secondary states come to internalize these ideals, shaping their policies and actions in ways that align with the hegemon's vision. According to these scholars, this creates a durable world order that can persist even as the hegemon's material power wanes. Importantly, because this order is built on shared beliefs rather than coercion, it is relatively cost-effective to maintain.

Looking at the world through this lens of socialization, we can understand why the liberal economic principles championed by the United States after World War II continue to hold sway today, despite America's declining relative power. The expansion of these norms to former allies and adversaries alike helped establish the current liberal economic order, providing a framework that endures even as America's dominance lessens.

In the case of China, its integration into international norms and institutions suggests a degree of socialization into the existing order. As a result, it becomes less likely that China would seek to challenge the hegemon militarily, as it has already embraced many of the ideals promoted by the United States.

Understanding Hegemonic Stability Theory

Hegemonic Stability Theory posits that a dominant power, known as a hegemon, plays a crucial role in establishing and maintaining stability in the international economic system. According to this theory, when a hegemon promotes open markets and trade, it creates a stable environment that benefits all participants, particularly smaller and weaker states that are unable to provide public goods themselves.

The rationale behind the hegemon's push for economic openness is primarily self-interest. As the largest economy, the hegemon stands to gain the most from open markets. Moreover, only a hegemon possesses the political and military capabilities necessary to enforce and encourage other states to embrace open trade.

In essence, the hegemon acts as a cornerstone in the creation and upkeep of the international system. Open trade benefits not only established powers but also rising challengers, who are integrated into the global economy and experience economic growth as a result. Take China, for example, currently the world's fastest-growing major economy. By participating in the open economic order established by the United States, China has seen significant economic gains, particularly in industries like labor-market exports.

Furthermore, scholars like Artur Stein argue that the decline of hegemony does not necessarily lead to a collapse of the trade regime, as long as the hegemonic power remains committed to economic openness. This suggests that, despite shifts in global power dynamics, there is little incentive for rising powers like China to directly challenge US hegemony. In fact, disrupting the existing economic order would likely undermine their own economic interests.

In light of these factors, the likelihood of conflict between China and the United States is reduced, as both countries have much to gain from maintaining the current system of open trade and economic stability.

Robert Keohane and the Institutional Approach to Cooperation

In his work "After Hegemony," Robert Keohane presents an institutionalist perspective to elucidate how states cooperate with each other. He argues that states often share common interests, and achieving these interests requires reaching agreements that benefit all parties involved. International regimes, according to Keohane, play a crucial role in facilitating such cooperation.

These regimes function by making it easier for states to negotiate and reach agreements that are mutually beneficial. They address the challenges posed by information asymmetry and uncertainty by embedding rules and norms within institutions. By reducing transaction costs and providing legal frameworks, these regimes create an environment that discourages cheating and builds trust among states.

Keohane emphasizes that while hegemonic leadership is often necessary to establish these regimes initially, they continue to play a vital role even after the decline of hegemony. This is evident in the continued influence of the United States in institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Crucially, cooperation within these regimes leads to absolute gains for all participants. By focusing on shared benefits rather than zero-sum outcomes, states are incentivized to prioritize cooperation over conflict. From an institutionalist perspective, this fosters a mindset where states view cooperation as more advantageous than engaging in conflicts.

In summary, Keohane's institutional approach suggests that international regimes play a key role in promoting cooperation among states, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict even in the event of hegemonic decline.

Conclusion

In summary, considering various theoretical viewpoints, it becomes apparent that the likelihood of a hegemonic war amidst the relative decline of US hegemony seems remote in today's international relations. The ongoing power dynamics between the US and China, alongside the mutual advantages derived from maintaining the existing global order, serve as significant deterrents against conflict. Thus, the probability of a hegemonic war in the current global context appears highly improbable.

.    .    .

References:

• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
• Ikenberry, G. J., & Kupchan, C. A. (1990). Socialization and Hegemonic Power: Implications for International Order Beyond the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 105(1), 109-126.
• Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Stein, A. (2011). Hegemonic Decline and the Drift of Universal Trade Norms: A Case Study of China's Hegemonic Position in Trade Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 55(4), 883-905.