| 英文摘要 |
Since the end of the Cold War, scholars have proposed various strategic options regarding U.S. hegemony. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States significantly increased its military expenditures, prioritizing counterterrorism efforts. However, this approach not only consumed vast resources and imposed a heavy fiscal burden but also provoked backlash from other nations due to NATO expansion and the presence of U.S. military forces abroad. Some realist scholars have attributed these challenges to the failure of the U.S. grand strategy of“liberal hegemony”. If we examine the ideas of the school of neo-liberalism in international relations theory, a reconsideration of the concept of“liberal hegemony”suggests that it should possess the following characteristics: 1. A hegemonic power should employ soft power to attract cooperation from other states rather than relying on hard power to coerce compliance, in order to avoid triggering counterbalancing efforts. 2. The strategy should emphasize values of liberal democracy and encourage diverse exchanges and cooperation among states; however, the hegemon should not impose political regime changes on other countries through military means. 3. International institutions should be leveraged to promote communication and establish a stable order, while the hegemonic power should refrain from monopolizing decision-making in global affairs. Overall, while the critiques from certain realist scholars are reasonable—pointing out that the grand strategy pursued by the U.S. in the post-9/11 era undermined its long-term national interests and failed to achieve its intended objectives. However, it would be an oversimplification to classify U.S. actions as a pursuit of“liberal hegemony”merely based on the rhetoric of freedom and democracy espoused by American officials. This is particularly evident during the administrations of Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump. |