Student ID:4232193
to comprehend current events and derive effective policies in the post-Cold War era. First,
Williams strongly points out, Realism is based on observations made in a world pre-globalisation
and as such it has limited ability to understand our world today (Ikenberry and Slaughter 2006).
This is significantly undermines Coxs interpretation of the implications of the end of the Cold
War and the fall of the USSR where he stated, In a matter of two years, the world system had
finally been united and the world economy rendered whole for the first time since
1947(2007,p.648), but does not consider globalisation at all, going on to say in reality the United
States by the beginning of the twenty-first century had all the features of a modern empire,
including,, a global culture and economy(2007,p.648). In essence this implies Cox assumed
that this economic boom was something that was exclusive to Americas new empire in a
unipolar world. Williams (2007,p.946) states, Realism presupposes that a great power can
essentially control its destiny and exert control over other states. This simple statement
undermines the frame and assumptions of Coxs main argument. However, this admission that at
the same time disagrees with Williams (2007,p.950) stating America is still the indispensable
nation, and if it can recapture the essence of Americas founding principles, it will remain so for
the foreseeable future later in his work. The statement implies that Williams admits to
interdependence but that it can still retain a place as a world leader. Williams continues attacking
Cox but (2007,p.947) states Although the erosion of U.S. economic power is linked to growing
international interdependence, this interdependence is also stimulus for growth in the U.S., but
in the same paragraph continues Meanwhile, the U.S. can reject international rule changes with
which it disagrees, such as the Kyoto Protocols that were dismissed because they would damage
the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Again, this alludes to the idea that the U.S. can
somehow pick and choose what constraints are placed on it while other nations must follow.
Williams then makes valid points on why Europe and China have big problems, then concludes
his argument (2007,p.950) that America would have a greater rather than lesser role in the
future.
Although Cox briefly mentions China, the U.S. economys competitiveness and admits
the U.S is still significantly unmatched in hard power, the bulk of his argument relies on drawing
parallels to historical observations of decline. Cox argued less for how power would change but
more towards the realist expectation of a gradual loss of power that would eventually manifest in
a serious competitor, the fact that the 2008 crisis affected most nations clearly shows how power
is diffused in many complex ways in the current international system rather than manifesting in
2
Student ID:4232193
polarities giving rise to major nations. Williams clearly overwhelms Coxs realist arguments, and
strongly frames Americas influence in the worlds future through more responsible foreign
policy. And clearly there has been progress made towards this, especially restraint towards war in
Syria. The U.S. is undeniably the most economically successful nation currently in absolute
terms, and has recovered from the recession faster than its competitors. However, the U.S. must
learn to apply liberalism instead of realism in foreign policy, something it still repeats up to this
day. A very recent example is the case of Chinas AIIB, the fact that the U.S. is concerned about
a competitor creating an international institution that falls into what could be called a liberal
development is hardly a soft power approach. The entry of allies such as the U.K. and Germany
is also yet another signal that although the U.S. is still pursuing hard power rather than soft
power foreign policy.