Revisión de estudios realizados

The debate on the status of the United States’ perceived hegemony in the international political economy has produced an apparently perverse classification of the opposing schools of thought on the subject of hegemony within the academic community. Since the late 1960’s the accepted wisdom in international relations, and also among many historians and political economists, has held that the United States is undergoing a long term decline in its hegemonic position in the international system. Further, this descent from power is seen as a major determinant of instability and aimlessness in the international political economy.^ This realist conception, typified in the works of Keohane, Snidal, Gilpin, Wallerstein and Kindlegerger to name only the more influential proponents, exemplifies a changing, not to say dynamic, view of the development of the international system.

Strangely however, the groups of writers who have, relatively recently, begun to challenge the conventional wisdom, actually epitomise a conservative view of the prospects for the continuance of American hegemony. Despite this conservative outlook, these analysis remain sufficiently exceptional, to deserve the epithet radical,

when studied in conjunction with the more conservative traditionalist school. Radical scholars such as Strange, Gill, Russett and Arrighi, argue that the United States retains as much, as possibly more, structural influence in the international system as it ever did in the past. Further, the radical critique rejects the inevitability thesis of hegemonic stability theorists, by arguing that the United States centrality in the global political economy represents a departure from earlier historic incidences of hegemony, as a result of the very different environment of the contemporary international system. The current American hegemony is, therefore, seen as

1 Susan Strange discusses the theoretical bases of the belief that the United States has lost her hegemony in "The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony." International Organisation 1987, 41: 551-574.

2

3

fundamentally healthy, if not actually immortal.^

Before examining contending approaches to hegemonic stability theory, it is apposite to examine the theoretical implications of this debate in the armaments collaboration issue area, and particularly in the process of regime evolution in the North Atlantic area post 1945. The progress of, and prospects for, collaboration in the production of armaments both across the Atlantic and within Western Europe are profoundly influenced by the condition of American hegemony in the international system. This is true both directly in political-industrial terms, but also more indirectly in areas such as economics, technology and finance. If the realist analysis of hegemonic decline is accepted, there is likely to be greater scope for armaments collaboration, both as an attempt by the USA to reduce costs, and due to the incentive it would give the Europeans to increase cooperative efforts lest the Americans cut their overseas commitments. Conversely, if the "radical" assessment of the enduring structural nature of American hegemony is more accurate, there may be reduced scope for collaboration in armaments production. Where one stands on this question depends on where one sits, but a definitive answer presupposes greater in depth study both of the nature of American hegemony, and on the problems of promoting armaments collaboration.

In recent years collaboration in armaments production® has come to be seen as the litmus test of a more equitable relationship within NATO. As Strange notes,'^ the security structure which the United States dominates constitutes one of the four sides Bruce Russett alludes to this problem in his article "The Mysterious Case of Lost Hegemony; Or, Is Mark Twain Really Dead?" International Organisation 1985, 39: 207-31. He maintains that: "Mark Twain did die eventually, and so will American hegemony. But in both cases, early reports of their demise, have been greatly exaggerated." ibid p231.

The term production will be preferred throughout the analysis in preference to procurement, since the latter denotes the more restricted process of how particular systems are chosen, rather than the more extensive process of identifying needs, planning, prototype design, testing, financing, research and development which make up the overall production process.

Strange, op cit pp565-66. The other 3 sides of the structure of the pyramid of American hegemony are deemed to be; first influence and control of knowledge, information and communication. Second, determining the structure of finance and credit, and finally controlling the system of production of goods and services. These structures are not unique to regimes according to Strange, but apply equally to families, villages and the world at large.

of the pyramid of American structural hegemony. Notwithstanding the debate on the status of the said hegemony, armaments collaboration represents an important aspect of one of these four supporting sides. It is the contention of this analysis that the experience of armaments collaboration within the Atlantic Community over the past 30 years may highlight some important points for the general debate on hegemony, as well as on the processes of regime formation and change.

The debate has, as Strange further notes,® assumed an ideological aspect, inasmuch as the liberal realist consensus chiefly associated with hegemonic stability theory, and the radical critique, both have preconceived notions on the progress of, and prospects for, armaments collaboration as a result of their general differences on the health of American hegemony.

The present analysis will argue that while hegemonic stability theory has some serious deficiencies, which are highlighted by the radical critique, the latter fails to take into account the very real constraints operative on the United States in the contemporary international system. Indeed the radical position may be mistaking a short term, and very conscious increment to American power resulting from the policies of the Reagan administration since 1980, for evidence of their preconceived position that in the long term the basis of American hegemony remains substantially intact.

Neither approach now appears to be a convincing account of American hegemony in and of itself. It is naturally important not to confuse and reify cause and effect in this regard. Maintaining that recent increases in armaments collaboration demonstrate

ipso facto the decline of US hegemony, is no more defensible than arguing that the failure to achieve greater European cooperation in the production of armaments is evidence of continued American dominance. The armaments collaboration issue area represents only one facet of the hegemony question. It is nonetheless important, in that an analysis of its progress over the past three decades may contribute toward a more complete understanding of the overall picture.

After examining the debate on the status of American hegemony, this Chapter will conclude with an analysis of the process of regime evolution in the armaments collaboration issue area, in terms of observable episodes of regime change between

1949 and the present.

AMERICAN HEGEMONY: REFLECTIONS ON MARK TWAIN AND KING