What’s more important when it comes to foreign policy: Our Hegemony or Liberal Internationalism

[OSR stands with Israel]

Assuming both differ on a particular action, what do you think is more important . I would say easily American Hegemony and it’s great that we are defying the WTO to take actions to preserve our Hegemony .

Btw this is also why support for liberal internationalism is dropping because it was way easier for us to be in favor of liberal internationalism when we were the unquestioned superpower in the world with unchallenged hegemony as the rules were set by us and internationalism could he used to increase our power .

It’s much more different to support it now given our hegemony is being challenged and global institutions limit our ability to respond to that threat .

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm sure the many non-Americans on this forum are all eager to protect "our" hegemony at the expense of liberalism and democracy, definitely.

Well this forum is majority American and number 2 it’s an interesting question because it sort of tells you the difference between neocons/realpoltick supporters and liberal internationalists . The former just supports liberal internationalism because of the fact that we believe that it’s a good tool for preserving our hegemony while the latter supports it because they actually believe in it .

For example when the WTO makes a ruling against us on an action we are taking against China , I absolutely believe we should ignore that ruling(like we have under Trump and Biden) and take those actions anyway . If intervention is required, UN support would be good but I don’t think it should hamper us from taking actions either.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

I stand in awe of a thread where you are absolutely correct and everyone else is talking nonsense. Couldn't have said it better, actually.

Aren’t you a neocon when it comes to FP and wasn’t the neocon argument for Iraq that it doesn’t matter what the UN or the world community thinks .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bump given recent events

I reject the premise that these two goals are mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that they are intertwined.

Read the question again , as i clearly mentioned in the cases when they do differ.

If you think that we should just ignore the WTO/NATO/UN whenever they do something we don't like, then why even bother being a part of those organizations at all?

So we can obstruct bad decisions from taking place. Also NATO isnt comparable to the other two as China, Russia or Iran(and these nations allies) dont have influence over them

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both should go hand-in-hand, and not as two competing options.

Obviously I would prefer a "Western hegemony" in general, of which the Transatlantic alliance is the most important cornerstone. The US and the EU would obviously have somewhat different priortities (I'm also counting in Canada and the UK for both sides of the Atlantic), but as about equal economic powers stand united in pushing back against China, Russia and other illiberal actors.

I think there is a difference between organization like say NATO then the UN/ICC/WTO. The later give China/Russia/Iran(and their allies) way too much power and make it very hard to counter them as well.

Really I think the question comes down to whether you use the cold war era definition of liberal internationalism (which was mainly NATO and our allies not part of NATO) or the post cold war definition. The post cold war definition is way too broad and way too utopian as well and has clearly not worked .

[OSR stands with Israel]

"Hegemony means we do whatever we want 100% of the time no matter what our allies think" is such a childish understanding of foreign affairs.

The WTO ruling against us when we put tarrifs on China is not beneficial to our interests one bit, nor is what the ICC has tried to do either.

The political establishment of both parties agree on this point as well which is why they are for defying the WTO, sanctioning the ICC because they understand that post cold war liberal internationalism has failed and the cold war version of it worked.

[OSR stands with Israel]

"Hegemony means we do whatever we want 100% of the time no matter what our allies think" is such a childish understanding of foreign affairs.

The WTO ruling against us when we put tarrifs on China is not beneficial to our interests one bit, nor is what the ICC has tried to do either.

Well, considering tariffs are a tax on consumers, it actually is in our best interest lmao.

So should we have not had trade restrictions on the USSR during the cold war