The Collapse of US Hegemony is Imminent

Connor- I'm glad that we have the ability to have an intelligent discussion over this issue—most debates on this topic I have entered simply reverted into "YOU'RE INSULTING AMERICA! PATRIOTISM IS GOOD!" I also agree with the vast majority of your logic, I just find that your argument fails to look deep enough that it directly refutes mine. Firstly, you rightly point out the need for definitions so that we do not end up arguing past each other. Your first argument is about what timeframe "imminent" has—this I will approach later in my argument, as it deserves a much larger answer. Next, you bring up the definition of hegemony which usefully has the term "nation" in it. This you use to reject my interpretation of the EU in that the EU is in fact a collection of nations. My response to this, in part, answers one of your expectations for my response, and that is what changes I predict to occur. One major change I see is that given the rapid success of the European Union, that a great many more such unions could occur. I do not predict where, although a "Asian Union" (ASEAN has too narrow of a scope for me to currently count it as such) would not surprise me. I also believe that the EU, partially given the fear of terrorism which has international implications, specifically given the London and Spain bombings of the past several years, could look to develop a more coordinated defense effort, which undoubtedly would move it closer to the definition of a state (or nation). Historically the international political system has been dominated by states, and this is perhaps the defining point of the Westphalian system, yet the question becomes, how do we define a "State"? Some of the earliest criteria have been A) the development of a military/self defense force, B) the development of a stable economic system, and C) sovereignty within its domains. The EU currently meets criteria B to a large extent, and even has its own peacekeeping force donated from member countries. This, to a limited extent, qualifies them for A as well. Further, as I mentioned in my previous argument, I find that the development of a constitution, which I find to be inevitable despite its stalled status currently, would make the EU much more qualifying of nation state status than any international organization in the history of time. If an EU constitution would occur it would likely create a confederacy, rather than a loose agreement, which it is now. So, in short, I believe that EU currently meets some standards to be considered a nation state, and that it will continue to develop in that direction. I also believe that the international system will not be dominated by states in the traditional sense, but rather that the definition of state and nation will be altered to include such things as the EU. I would also like to point out that your definition of nation makes room for: "politically organized body of people under a single government." The EU undoubtedly is a politically organized body of people—or at least states—and with a constitution I would maintain that it would indeed be under a single government. Now to define imminent. This is a definition which is incredibly difficult to find an accurate representation of. Dictionary definitions offer mere rhetoric, "impending" (Dictionary.com, the most accurate of all dictionaries!!! ;) ) For this reason, it can be the defining point of this debate. I suggest that a term of 20 years be used for the definition of imminent, for a couple reasons. First, that means that it is 1% of the two millennia since the end of the BC era. Secondly, it assures that the US will have several people at its helm—in a 10 year definition has the possibility to be dominated by one president for 80%, and the second president would only have 2 years with which to work. 20 years would give the ability for at least 3 full term presidents to lead the US. Finally, 20 years is the span of a generation. I believe that in the terms of historical developments, one generation is clearly quite rapid. Now, to address your attacks upon my arguments, rather than semantics. You point out the importance of GNP to a countries overall economic stability, and I would agree that overall GNP is a MUCH better way to way to determine current status as a hegemonic power. However, your statistics have two major flaws. First, it only addresses the current system, whereas the strength of currency reflects the current trend. I am not sure whether you are a sports person, but an analogy would be to go back to the first meeting of Boston College and Virginia Tech. A snapshot of the scoreboard with 3 minutes remaining would show Virginia Tech in clear control. This is the equivalent of looking at the current system of GNP. The drive summary, however, would show that Boston College was going down the field to score a touchdown on a drive that started inside the 10 yard line—that would be the currency equivalent. While at that moment in time the US, or Virginia Tech in the analogy, was in clear control, but it was slowly escaping their grasp. The second flaw is that in your statistics for GNP you do not display the information for the EU as a whole, which is a main focus of that section of my argument. Checking the CIA world factbook I discovered why. The EU has more GDP (purchasing power parity) than any other body in the world. Yes, that does include the US. Also, you have absolutely no response to my argument that China controls the US economy currently. The US has a massive trade deficit to China, and is in massive debt to the country which has essentially taken on full payment of the Iraq War—and continued to grow at nearly unprecedented levels. Indeed many analysts believe that China will surpass the US economy by 2020—a time difference well within the 20 year timeframe I laid out earlier. Now to address your response to China's military power. Certainly the US spends more money upon its military than anyone else—I do not have the exact statistic but I believe it is more than the next 11 countries combined. The converse of course is that China has more people than any country. Also, we recently have seen a couple things. Firstly, that technology can not simply replace boots on the ground, which gives China's military a distinct advantage in that they have both a high level of technology as well as the people with which to work. Also, the US seems to be suffering from a contemporary military-industrial complex, which is causing the increasing worry about American military prowess to devastate itself economically. And although you are correct about the American nuclear arsenal being that devastating, China also has equivalent technology, making that point essentially void. Next you talk about globalization, but I fail to see how this is relevant, and I will await clarification before I respond. Finally you ask whether a North American Union would constitute a hegemon and preserve American hegemony. I do believe that such a Union could prove to be very beneficial to the US and that it would constitute a major power in the international system, but an underlying assumption of your question is that it is possible for several hegemons to occur at once, a theory with which I disagree. I maintain that a collapse of unipolarity constitutes a collapse of hegemony. A world in which there are multiple "hegemons" constitutes a world without a hegemon. I hope that in your response you can firstly clarify what point you wished to make with your discussion on globalization so that I can respond, and also that you can continue discussion on the definition of the term imminent. Finally, I hope that you can point out which factors in the international system you find pointing to the stability of American hegemony. --ishamael