The Chinese-language United Daily News published an article by Kuan Chung (關中) titled: “Criticizing US hegemony — it has become a rogue nation.”
In response, I would argue that many academics affiliated with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) appear to deliberately overlook or dismiss the widely recognized hegemonic stability theory.
Hegemonic stability theory posits that the international system is more stable when a single, dominant and benevolent nation-state, or hegemon, provides essential global public goods, such as security and economic stability. This leadership helps maintain order and reduces the risk of large-scale conflicts.
When the hegemon’s power wanes, global instability often increases due to the absence of clear leadership and the rise of competing power centers. This dynamic was evident in the multipolar world leading up to World War I and World War II.
After 1945, the US emerged as the leading global power, initiating a new international order characterized by economic interdependence and strategic alliances — embodied in the Bretton Woods system. This era, known as Pax Americana, saw the US utilize its economic and military dominance to foster stability and prevent major conflicts.
The US also played a pivotal role in establishing international institutions such as the UN, promoting global cooperation and supporting economic recovery in war-torn regions. By providing security guarantees to its allies, the US helped deter aggression and stabilize key regions such as Europe and East Asia in the aftermath of World War II.
Critics of hegemonic stability theory argue that US hegemony was characterized by coercive measures, proxy wars and uneven benefits, both during and after the Cold War. Despite these criticisms, the overall impact of US dominance is frequently credited with fostering a generally peaceful and rules-based international order following World War II.
There is no scientific method to measure events that never occurred, meaning we can never precisely quantify how many military conflicts were prevented by Pax Americana. A useful analogy is how people often highlight police mistakes or abuses of power, but no one can calculate how many crimes police have successfully prevented.
While quantifying hypothetical scenarios is inherently challenging, it is reasonable to suggest that, without Pax Americana, western and northern Europe might have fallen under the control of the Soviet Union. Similarly, Taiwan would likely have been taken over by the Chinese Communist Party, subjecting its people to policies such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and zero COVID-19.
The descendants of the KMT and their families might have faced “re-education camps” instead of enjoying the relatively free society they now inhabit and often criticize.
One certainty is that there has been no major war since 1945 — a 78-year period frequently attributed to Pax Americana. While some argue that nuclear weapons have played a significant role in deterring large-scale conflicts, the strategic and economic policies of US hegemony have also been crucial in fostering a relatively peaceful international order. This perspective is widely accepted in academic circles.
The alternative to the peace maintained by the current unipolar power is a scenario few would genuinely welcome. Be cautious what you wish for, Mr Kuan.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, lecturing on international relations.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS