It is often said ‘might is right’ because power (whether military or economy) is an essential element to change the behaviour of the states or human beings. A superpower like United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union declared itself a “revisionist state” to dominate the world through its absolute military superiority and robust economy. Initially, after World War II, the US adopted a strategy called “Grand Area” to accelerate its influence beyond its borders. At that time, the US was an owner of half of the world’s wealth.  

According to Noam Chomsky, there are two superpowers, the United States and the world public opinion. Chomsky argues that the US had violated the international laws and UN resolutions to fulfil its strategic interests across the world. The military intervention, use of force, and economic sanctions are the primary tools of the US to dominate the world. The US used “humanitarian intervention” card to control the resources of the weak states. The public opinion was ignored whenever the US decided to attack a weak state. The US’s intervention in South Vietnam was a fatal episode where people were mercilessly killed and the crops were destroyed with chemical weapons.

Other examples are its intervention in the Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Columbia, Nicaragua, Kosovo, and East Timor. The US bombing of Libya, Panama, and Afghanistan resulted in huge casualties. US-backed Israel to invade Lebanon and Syria is a recent example where human life seems valueless. The US is accused of as a promoter of the “silent genocide” in Afghanistan. Surprisingly, when the World Court found the US responsible for the destruction in Nicaragua, the editors of the New York Times condemned the Word Court as a “hostile form” and “irrelevant”, like the United Nations.   

Chomsky argues that the US support to Turkey for persecute Kurds is an example of state-sponsored terrorism. According to the US, it reserves the sovereign right to take military action, how and when it chooses. The new norms were established to legitimate the attack on weak states without the Security Council authorization. And factually, the US was driven by avarice. The main purpose of the US is its unquestionable dominated capitalist world economy. Chomsky argues that the US is against the economic nationalism of the weak states because it prevented America as the first beneficiary.

Take another example of Iraq, France’s threat to veto a UN declaration of war was bitterly condemned. The US explained to the world before invading Iraq, “We did not need the security council..." "...the UN can meet and discuss, but we don’t need their permission...” and “...we have the authority to do what we believe is necessary." Former National Security Advisor of the US Colin Powell argued that Iraq was being attacked because it had violated its ‘international obligations’ under its 1991 surrender agreement, which required the disclosure and disarmament of its dangerous weapons.

At the Azores summit, former president George Bush argues that US will institute the regime of its choice even if Saddam Hussain disarms completely, and even if he and his cohorts disappear. The regime change in Iraq was the regime (democratic) which the conqueror will impose not a regime which Iraqis might prefer. However, Britain was supporting the war on the condition of Iraq’s possession of WMD. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw announced that in case Saddam Hussain disarms, we accept that the government of Iraq stays in place. Chomsky argues that the US liberation and democracy card was a mere bluff. The US attacked Iraq to test its abilities. It was a “preventive war” experiment on Iraq.    

The question arises, is the state not allowed to have WMD to protect its sovereignty? The defence realist or the father of neo-realism, Kenneth Waltz supported the spread of few nuclear weapons for stability and peace. For him, “WMD are the only means to deter the United States”. Also, Steven Miller argues that WMD are vital to deter American intervention. Take the case of North Korea, deterrence optimists believe that the few nuclear weapons had prevented the United States to attack Pyongyang. It is assumed that North Korea has learned from Iraq to focus on nuclear deterrence. But North Korea’s weapons are declared a ‘bad’ or an irresponsible nuclear state, thus, it should dismantle its WMD because these are a source of alarm or a great threat to world peace or the US.  

Similarly, Iraq’s WMD was not for deterrence but a great threat to the security of the US. Experts analyzed that Iraq’s WMD was an accuse, it was a war on resources, to control the oil reserves. It was simply a propaganda. The 95 percent of the Turkish people refused to allow the US demands to attack Iraq from its borders. The Italian and the Mexican people were largely opposed to a war on Iraq. The half of the Britain population were opposed to attack Iraq too. It was estimated that supporters of Iraq war did not rise over 11 percent in any country.

Interestingly, an informal poll by Time Magazine found that over 80 per cent of respondents in Europe regarded the US as a great threat to world peace. Also, Washington Post shared a story that many people think George Bush was a great threat to world peace than Saddam Hussain. Europe was divided into “old” (against the US interests) and “new” (advocates of the US interests) Europe by the US. Why the US ignored the world opinion public can be justified by its robust military and economic power. It would be right to say that the US misuses its power to fulfil its strategic interests.

I fail to understand the logic of declaring one state ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’. The United States declared many states as ‘rogue’, however, according to Samuel Huntington and Robert Jervis, the US is becoming a rogue superpower for much of the world. Jervis argues that the prime rogue state today is the United States. Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival considered the United States as the sponsor of terrorism, known for its atrocities in Central America, Africa, and the Middle East. In the case of Algeria, Chomsky was dissatisfied with the US-backed state terrorist atrocities where 200,000 people were slaughtered in eleven years. Carlos Salinas argues that “the US government is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism”. However, ostensibly, the US is a defender of peace and should remain the unquestionable power to decide who is who. Undeniably, the US itself knows its atrocities but it believes to be obeyed and feared than loved.

Currently, the principle “America as historical vanguard” is in threat. The interests of the US seem not to remain the interests of the whole world at all. Unquestionably, China is emerging as a rising power which has become “America’s Achilles Heel”. Several foreign policy analysts expect that China might take over the US in a decade or two. Thus, the US dream to remain dominant hegemon is fishy. During World War II, the declining powers like Japan and Germany thought that their first military assault on the enemy will lead them to victory. However, the result was dissimilar and they were defeated. Similarly, the United States is assumed by many experts as a declining power because of China’s growing robust military and economic capabilities. The US has been suggested by foreign policy analysts to accommodate China peacefully, otherwise, the war might happen between the two. Also, China is alarmed not to resist the US everywhere and rise steadily.

The following questions arise, will the US accommodate China peacefully? Will the US prevent China to become a global power? Will the US allow China to guide the world? Can China become a global power or rise peacefully?

Offensive Realist, John Mearsheimer in his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" argues that China is not offensive as compared to the United States. The US is passing bucks to enemy states of China to disturb it. The motive is to prevent China from rising a regional hegemon or in narrow terms a global power. Thus, for the US, China’s rise might be unsafe for its strategic interests. But it might be hard for the US to tame China because it has economically progressed well which is persuasively backbone for the military strength. China is avoiding military conflicts with its neighbours to focus on its economy, however, the US is trying its best to engage China in conflicts with its enemy states.

Also, the US is not in a position to attack China because it will be a suicide, nuclear China might be fatal in retaliation. The alternate and viable option for the US is to block China economically which seems quite difficult. China’s soft power strategy is thriving across the world. From these angles, China’s journey to global power is a feasible dream. However, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in their piece "Why Nations Fail" are unhappy with the exclusive political institutions of China that might guide it toward an unproductive state in future.  

The painful memory of both the World Wars is enough for both states to accommodate with each other peacefully. EH Carr in his piece "The Twenty Years’ Crisis" argues that universal principles were not principles at all because of the influence of the established powers which intentionally sidelined the interest of the weak states. Carr argues that the intellectuals were also pseudo-intellectuals who deliberately supported the flawed policies to guide the states toward destruction. For instance, John Stuart Mill urged Britain to conquer more of India on the basis of humanitarian intervention. Mill’s humanitarian intervention motivated France to carry its civilization mission in Algeria by eliminating the indigenous people.

The edited book "Accommodating Rising Powers" by TV Paul displayed many recommendations to the US for accommodating China peacefully. The authors in this book have focused on the importance of morality and avoiding an arms race. Steven Lobell argues that it is better for China to avoid a blue water navy capability. Lobell is worried in case China manages to balance the United States grand strategy “Command of Commons” (land, sea, air, and space) that might provoke the US and is a sign of instability. Also, Lobell suggested the US to focus on the “target balancing” and “specific threats” against China. I understand that the “target balancing” of the US against China might result in the alliance of Russia and China to tame the US. The better solution is to accept China as an emerging global power.

Chomsky argues that the US actions are defensive by definition so that any reaction to them is aggression. The terrorist is one who fits well in the eyes of the US. The biggest irony is that initially, Saddam Hussain was believed by the US as the ‘good’ man capable of improving human rights, regional stability, and peace in the region. But he was declared terrorist when the US thought that its interest now lied in declaring Saddam Hussain as a threat to the world peace to control the oil reserves in Iraq. However, it is difficult for the US to declare China a rogue state because China is not like the above weak states where the US immorally and illegally succeeded in committing atrocities against the indigenous people.   

John Mearsheimer argues that unbalanced multipolar world is dangerous for world peace. Chomsky’s empirical study on the US’s foreign policy is enough for a reader to judge how the sole superpower has pushed the world towards the abode of the war. To curb the US atrocities on the weak states, it needs either a strong world public reaction or a regional hegemon like China to challenge the interests of the US. However, China is an emerging power not able to resist the United States everywhere, thus, until and unless a stable and balanced China will not emerge, the US will continue to take the world. That is why Chomsky considered the world public opinion as the second superpower after the United States.