Dr Hildebrandt:

The term globalization is a cliche of our times. Broadly speaking, it means the break down, or inversely the inter-connectedness of trans-border movements in all spheres of life, right from the economy, to culture, politics and society. For a long period of time globalization was measured by the extent of American presence across the globe, a notion that would deem it as an Empirical power, responsible for overseeing the welfare of other nations and acting as non-partisan peacemakers in times of conflict.

Determining a nations credentials as an Empire needed to take into account the so called 'hard' and 'soft' factors of power. Achieving this would enable a state to extend its sphere of influence beyond its core, to the outer peripheries, subsequently altering their secure zone. This notion is highlighted in H Muenkler's analysis of the old 'East-West' conflict, where by geopolitical stability was built and maintained by the USA and the Soviet Union. However, the demise of the Soviet Union, meant that the United States begun to fundamentally re-map and re-strategize their concept of a secure area and their periphery, with a heavy leaning towards China and achieving possible geopolitical stability with a future power.

The Chinese leadership for its part, found itself having to grapple between acting as a possible counter to the USA in a conflict situation or opening up its markets to investment and imports, in order to gain entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Choosing the latter had the potential ramifications of contending with the US over the reunification of Taiwan and, saturating their markets with American goods, credit rating and pension funds.

Both the Clinton and the subsequent Bush administration have firmly subscribed to the idea that globalization was essential to creating a US centred global market. Their attempts to dominate and use military and economic might as crucial instruments of their policy, have not only failed, but could be seen as dismissing the notion that the US is an empirical power and is merely just a hegemonic state in our international system.

For an American Empire to exist in our contemporary world it would have to satisfy five conditions guaranteeing its superiority over other states. The United States would have to demonstrate uncontested military dominance, not only in the instruments available to wage war, but also in its capacity to safeguard its interests on its own soil, without unsettling or alienating its population, a condition that was grossly damaged in the World Trade Centre attacks on September 11th, 2001. Secondly, the US must secure access to indispensable raw materials such as oil and gas, an area in which they have failed after numerous attempts in West Asia and Central Asia. Third, the US must have adequate economic safeguards to ensure that their economy maintains a competitive edge over its European and Asian rivals. While American TNC's have successfully embedded themselves across the globe, they operate independent of the American political establishment, which realizes that globalization is not synonymous with Americanization. Fourthly, the American administration must have an effective integrative capacity, an aspect of its politics which failed to clinch support at the UN on its Iraq invasion and which could not stop the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Finally, there must be an American dominance in culture, civil society and technology. Arguably, the US has demonstrated its ability to control these spheres, however, its inability to wage effective dominance in the other pre-requisites to Imperialism, would render this inconsequential.

Keeping in mind the arguments above, it would suffice to say that we are not living in a world of American Imperialism, but rather one where the United States has asserted itself as a hegemonic power. While it is able to influence virtually every aspect of international relations, it is not able to exercise absolute sovereignty in other states internal dealings. The pipeline from Iran, through Pakistan and into India has connected two regions and created linkages between them. America's opposition to the pipeline is a well-known fact, as it affects their strategy to 'play' Asian countries against each other. However, the US has been unable to stop the development of the pipeline, once again demonstrating that it is merely a hegemonic power.

Discussion:

There is the converse view, that the US is indeed an empire. The traditional definition of an empire looks at the British or the Romans, something that needs to be redefined into today's context. American troops are stationed in 120 countries across the globe, amounting to 375,000. America has a doctrine of pre-emption, an economic agenda of its own, and a consumer market whereby the US dollar is extremely strong and it has no regard for international laws. How can this not be the signs of an American empire?

Dr Hildebrandt:

An empire does not depend on the actions of other countries; it can rely on its own. There is no doubt that the US is powerful, but it is a merely a hegemonic power in our international system, which has to accept the autonomy of other countries.

Question:

America is technologically dominant; however, it is not an empire because of its inability to dominate all economic spheres. It has a trade surplus with China and has had its troops evicted from a small country like Uzbekistan. In terms of China, what approach would the US adopt in its bilateral dealings? Would India act as a strategic counter to China's dominance in the region? In terms of intervention, there need to be rules pertaining as to who is going to do it and what force will be used. Dealing with this is a very difficult task.

Dr Hildebrandt:

The US realizes that China does not want a new East-West conflict and is trying to build a strategy concerning China whereby it is not contained, but rather engaged with, and this engagement would involve a great amount of Indian influence. Intervention is a complex issue and it is not easy to determine who decides the fate of other people's lives. In terms of international law, it is imperative that intervention be redefined in regards to human rights, thus maybe ensuring that even hegemonic powers must take heed.

Question:

The presence of MNC's and TNC's does not denote that conflict will not take place. The presence of these firms in China does not bring about a hard and fast rule that there is a deterrent to engagement. The idea that no two countries with a McDonald's in them have ever gone to war, does not apply today. Although General Motors, an American firm, is present in China, it does not necessitate that China and the US will not engage in a conflict. At the end of the day, the interests of the corporation lie separate to that of the state and cannot be a deterrent to engagement.

Dr Hildebrandt:

There is a new level, where TNC's cannot be confined to one side of the conflict. Big American firms are important for the US, so there is a certain degree of connectedness with what suits them and American policies. Sometimes, the will of the states is passed through the TNCs.

Question:

Is globalization reversible? China is holding billions of dollars in surplus, which could be an eventual cause of concern for Americans. This could lead to a possible trade war and a reverse in globalization.

Comments:

• The US controls 20-25% of the international budget, of several multilateral systems. It would obviously want to ensure that its needs are not trampled upon, and has thus been a strong advocate for one state, one vote in the UN. What is most important in US policies is to cut across party lines, as is evident with their policies regarding energy, which were put in place shortly after WWII. The US links with the Saudi Arabia still continues, and despite what the Uzbek's have done, the US is still a power in control of its energy interests.

• Ever since the emergence of Bretton-Woods the US dollar has been dominating, despite changes in the international system, markets and currency fluctuations. International organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank remain dominated by the US, an aspect that was evident before the US was the emergent power. If you take the EU role as an entity, it is unable to define policies and is more of a back up system to US initiatives on policy.

• In regards to China, the US has nothing to gain, by containment. China and India are the markets of the future and it would be to the United States advantage to engage with China and India.

• The US has never attempted to contain China. In fact, it is China's own policies that have contained itself, right from Deng Xiao Ping in the 1970s. The US policy towards China has always been contained engagement, and not containment. One should really be asking, how India will deal with China and the US?

• In the 1920s, the talk in Europe was about American imperialism and cultural influence in Europe and across the world. Today, the talk in Europe is about Indian and Chinese influence in their markets, in terms of textiles and cheap labour. This is the new threat or the new globalization. America is at a sub-level of the international system.

• American globalization is being part of an imperial power. However, it has gone beyond that, and could be argued that it is in reverse. The 'underdogs' of yesteryear, namely China and India, is whom globalization belongs too. In fact, India might have an advantage over China in this aspect, because it already has a strong IT base and a very large English speaking population.

Concluding Remarks:

General Banerjee:

The impact of globalization has been immense and irreversible, and definitely cannot be ignored. While it has been the result of several 'revolutions' it is an inevitable process of the 21st Century, with several advantages and disadvantages. It is important to take note of Thomas Friedman's theory of the "Flat World", where greater equality means that countries such as India and China are able to compete with the US and that being present in the US or Europe does not necessarily translate into being an advantage. Globalization has made things unequal and has enabled countries such as India to make full use of these advantages. In the mid 1960s, the US had a relaxed immigration policy, which was able to attract skilled labour from across the world and reap the benefits of their expertise. However, keeping in mind the "Flat World" theory, this does not equate to the contemporary international system, with skilled labour most often remaining in the country of origin. The US hegemony in the international arena will eventually decline, with regional powers such as India and China, occupying the world stage in 20-40 years time. However, it is important that India adapts to the changing times and does not 'rest on its laurels', so to speak, moving away from the boom of the IT sector, to other emergent markets.