USA välispoliitilise sekkumise õigustamine ja hegemoonia demokraatide ja vabariiklaste omavahelises võrdluses

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine the connection between U.S. foreign intervention, its justifications and hegemony. Attitudes of both democrats and republicans were assessed based on the justifications given by U.S officials to interfere in Kosovo in 1999, and in Iraq in 2003. Also, a perspective for the future was created based on the findings. In the light of upcoming presidential elections and talks about the potential decline of U.S. supremacy, these findings may prove to be useful. The study acknowledged the fact of U.S. hegemony and its strong remaining potential in the world today. It was brought out that the United States has both leadership and dominance, has the capability to merge soft- and hard power and is ready to actually use its supremacy when needed. The main concept of this work is an understanding of U.S. hegemony as a progressive phenomenon, which means that America has always been moving step by step towards bigger involvement and primacy on an international scale. It was also found in the study that the safeguarding of hegemony, foreign intervention and changes in justifications are continuing trends in U.S. defense and foreign policy rather than just policy goals for democrats or republicans. It was stated that America uses its supremacy to redefine international values or terms like sovereignty to find new justifications for interfering. However, some differences were found between democrats and republicans, main one of then being the fact that republicans tend to use more self-seeking and real threat-posing justifications as democrats rely more on moral values and the involvement of international communities. Based on these findings, it can be said that future governments led by republicans might have a bigger tendency to act on their own while democrats pursue hegemonic goals mainly through the work of international organisations.