Is America the most powerful Nation in the State System?

What is the State System?
The true definition of the state system is as follows; A pattern of relationships between and amongst states that establishes a measure of order and predictability. This idea of a so called state system was originally laid out in the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. These Westphalia state system was based on two key points:

1. States have independent control as to what goes on inside their borders (internal sovereignty) and every other group or Nation state is therefore a subordinate to the state.

2. The Relations between and among states are structured by the acceptance of the Sovereign independence in which all states enjoy due to the first point. This then implies that all states are legally equal. However I will discuss below that this is clearly not the state.

The idea of a State System being eroded?
During the early era of the state system (after the peace Treaty of Westphalia). State sovereignty was the primary organizing principle of International Politics. However in recent years this state system which can also be known as a state centric approach (the state is at the center of everything) has become more and more difficult to sustain. This is mainly due to the continued growth in Transnational Corporations (General Motors), Non-Governmental organisations (Oxfam) and other Non state actors such as I.S.I.S (They are currently worth $2 billion dollars and they make around $3 million a day). All three can be seen as profit organisations although Oxfam looks to make a profit to help others. Due to this they can all have a massive impact on not merely regional but global policies to do with anything they have an interest in. For example General Motors will push for less tax on cars and Oxfam will push for more help to Third World Nations whilst ISIS will aim to attack the Western world in order to scare people and get further interest from possible recruits for example putting the beheading s of western journalists on YouTube, for the World to then see. This has then led to the development of the mixed actor model. This means that international politics is now shaped by a much broader range of interests and groups. Therefore allowing for the state to be practically by passed in certain areas of decision making. This then means that the state has then lost some of its Sovereignty. Due to it being no longer able to make all the decisions within its own borders, also states may now hugely be effected by decisions that are made in other nation states. For example the current idea of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which is being negotiate between the U.S and EU is being brought together simply just to help the TNC's. This then shows a huge erosion of some of the EU states sovereignty. The fact that 20 councils in the UK have declared themselves as TTIP free zones in recent weeks just shows how much the general population do not want the TTIP agreement to come into place. You could also say that state system has not been eroded as the states still get the ultimate choice as to what goes on inside their borders.


Is America now the most powerful within the state system?
If you were to look at the facts then their is no doubt that the U.S.A has the greatest financial and military power. For example the current GDP of the U.S is 16.77 trillion this is only 7 trillion more than second place (China). Its so called superpower rival Russia has a GDP of only 3.3 trillion. Also when it come to military prowess USA rank only behind China with available soldiers ( China with 2.3 million, U.S with 1.4 million and Russia in 4th place with 776 thousand). Also when it comes to diplomatic factors the U.S.A is always their heading the discussions and making sure that its view point is heard loud and clear. For example with the on going crisis in Syria, the U.S.A were the first to take military action and to perform air strikes. Since then France and the U.K as well as Russia have all joined the party. This then shows the power in which the U.S has over other nation states. The spread of globalization has also been called Americanization, this has then led to the further spreading of Western ideologies and therefore creating further peace zones and allies for the U.S to then spread further influence throughout the World. This process will therefore only increase the Americans power within the state system and reduce other nation states power within the system. For these reasons alone it leaves me in No doubt that America is the most powerful nation within the state system currently. However I do feel that they are not as dominant as they were say 10 years ago this is due to the return of Russia under Putin (for example they should their true military prowess with cruise missiles being fired from 900 miles away from Syria on board a warship) and the continual rise of China and its economy at a rate of 7% or more compared to the U.S 3.9% (the U.K with a massive 0.7%).

Is Globalisation merely Americanisation in disguise?

What is Globalisation?
The true definition of globalisation is as follows; 'The emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us.' To sum this definition up I see globalisation as the merging of countries through Trans National Co operations and International Organisations. For example McDonald's has a restaurant in 119 countries. This then allows all these countries to experience what once was original American food (now factory made). This is therefore known as cultural Globalisation as every one of these 119 states shares something similar and can then be linked through this. Moving on to the International Organisations, these create what is known as Political globalisation. This refers to the fact that these international organisations are rapidly growing in importance and they are beginning to have more power than some Third World Nation states. An example of an International Organisation is the United Nations (UN), the UN however differs from certain other international organisations such as the European Union. This is because the UN keeps the sovereignty within the Nation state and this is then known as Intergovernmentalism. Were as joining the EU means that the Nation State will subsequently lose some of its sovereignty as in certain areas the EU has sovereignty. An example of this is with Fishing regulations and the fact that Spanish ships are allowed to fish in British waters. Not only this but the free movement agreement has significantly reduced a states sovereignty and this can also be linked back to the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as in this agreement state borders were laid out. However due to the EU's free movement agreement this has been infringed. This is then known as Supranationalism; which implies that states will lose some of their sovereignty by joining particular bodies and not only this but these organisations are able to impose their will on member states.

Who heads these bodies and is is just Americanisation in disguise?
Before I begin to talk about whether Globalisation is Americanisation in disguise, I would like to discuss who actually is the head of these international bodies and therefore the ones heading this so called 'Globalisation'. I say so called as I don't really think it exists. In the case of talking about who heads these international organisations I am going to ignore the EU as it is not World Wide. I have picked out 4 World Wide organisations (1. UN    2. World Bank   3. IMF   4. World Trade Organisation) the leaders of these four organisations come from South Korea (Heavily supported by the US), U.S.A, France and Brazil. So surely these so called international organisations, decisions will therefore only help the Nation states who do something in return for the leaders nation or if they grant them a certain fund for example it will make the leaders nation better off in some shape or form? Although I do understand that you can not have someone from a totally neutral nation as they will always have certain links or favour particular nation states. Therefore I believe that if these organisation were to truly push forward globalisation and really help everyone not just those at the top then they should not have a leader, instead have a board of people from every member nation state.Then just have someone who referees if you like the discussions but even then you could argue it would create favoritism.

Now on to the main point, is this Globalisation just Americanisation in disguise? In mind my their is no doubt that it is Americanisation in disguise. However I do not think it comes from what the government or the current President (Obama) are pushing forward. In fact I believe that their hands are tied by the transnational corporations and corruption that comes with these and their billionaire owners. I suppose you could argue that the government is also corrupt but I don't think this is true. For example Shell have a GDP the same as Iran so if you think how significant Iran is within Global Politics then you just don't know what Shell are doing or saying behind closed doors. The main reason I have highlighted Shell is that when it comes to the UN and their environmental policies. In my opinion they are never quite good enough and nothing still seems to be happening about the development of Cars and their efficiency especially electric cars when their are perfectly good ones out their i.e Tesla. This is because these transnational corporations have to much power and are only interested in making money. This interest then links to the American policy of every man for himself (Capitalism). Their is no doubt that they are trying to spread this World Wide. One in order to increase their global power and remain as the greatest super power and the other to increase their own nation states profit through the use of cheap labour abroad.

So why would the U.S do this? Going back to the above paragraph and the leaders of the four highlighted World organisations. One leader is directly from the US the other is from South Korea which has received masses of support from the U.S down the years i.e foe example the US helped establish the nation as it is seen today in 1950. The other two leaders are from Brazil and France. So it can therefore be argued that the US has a certain hand in two and has close links with the other two nation states. This then means that they will almost certainly get decisions in their favour and then not in favour of its opponents or third world nations who are willing to ignore the US led Globalisation. The US may go about taking control of these organisations as it may feel a threat from other nations. However in my eyes i don't think they feel threatened at all. I believe that it is simply down to corruption and that those at the top are getting richer and more powerful and those at the bottom and getting poorer and weaker. This is therefore precisely what these billionaire owners want. Not only that but if they can hied what they are doing and put a good spin on it at the same time, known as 'Globalisation' then it looks even better on these people and it makes America particularly look like the savior of the planet. But as you can see from the following photo is it really doing enough?

So yes Globalisation does look like Americanisation in my view. However I do also believe that they are not the only ones putting this false front forward (Globalisation). For example the U.K and most of Europe also promote it. This can especially be seen in the case of Indonesia in the 60s when over a million Indonesians were brutally murdered by General Suharto and his men who had the full support of the US and UK governments and even the Queen. This was simply because he was willing to open up Indonesia rich resources to the World and also allow them to use the countries cheap Labour possibilities to the world (Globalisation). Also not only the US is guilty of buying cheap clothes that are made in these sweat shops. The whole of Europe does it and nearly every high street in the UK has a Primark which is renowned for its use of sweat shops in Third World nation states. So is Globalisation real? I believe not. But are the Americans trying to promote their policies thorough this? Almost Certainly.