[TheeraofAmericanhegemonywhichhasdominatedworldaffairssince1945andreacheditspeaksince1991iscomingtoanendAndratherthanbemoanthischangeAmericaandtheworldshouldembracetheopportunitiesitpresents[1945年以来世界情勢を支配し、1991年以降に頂点に達したアメリカの覇権の時代は終わりを迎えようとしている。そして米国と世界はこの変化を嘆くのではなく、この変化がもたらす機会を受け入れるべきである。
For too long, the United States has carried the burden of global security tied to the notion of maintaining a “rules-based international order,” a concept that has become increasingly irrelevant. The end of this era opens the door to a more just, prosperous and realistic world order. World order is based on balancing world powers rather than dominating them. The time has come for the United States to adopt a grand strategy of restraint rooted in realist international relations theory and reshape its role in a multipolar world.
The decline of American hegemony is a gradual process, accelerated by major events, but always rooted in deeper structural trends. The rise of other world powers is challenging the United States' ability to control world affairs. After the Cold War, the conventional wisdom that Washington could dictate global governance indefinitely was always an illusion. Excessive military intervention, combined with domestic and international challenges, is weakening America's dominance.
The international system the United States helped build after World War II, a system of multilateral institutions and liberal norms, has long shown cracks. This was not a neutral or benevolent framework. It was a structure that served American interests, often at the expense of other countries.
The idea that Washington can or should continue to act as a global enforcer is not only unrealistic, but counterproductive as competition from other powers intensifies. As U.S. foreign policy has proven in recent decades, obsession with hegemony only leads to more costly interventions and strategic failures.
The end of American hegemony is not a catastrophe, but an opportunity to adopt a more restrained and pragmatic approach to international relations. A grand strategy of restraint based on realist theory recognizes the limits of American power and the dangers of overextension.
Realism, which focuses on national interests, the balance of power, and the inevitability of competition between states, provides a clear path forward. Rather than seek to dominate the world or impose an ideological framework, the United States should focus on protecting its core interests while avoiding unnecessary entanglements.
In a multipolar world, the United States should be one of many great powers. The key to maintaining security and stability is not to impose American leadership but to engage in balance: selective competition and cooperation without seeking to dominate other countries. This shift away from hegemony creates space for new coalitions and more flexible partnerships based on mutual benefit rather than unilateral advantage.
As China rises and challenges U.S. influence, policymakers are tempted to frame the situation as a new Cold War, with China replacing the Soviet Union as the primary adversary. However, this is a false analogy. The Cold War was a unique ideological and military struggle between two superpowers, and trying to apply the same logic today will only lead to dangerous escalation. The United States should not attempt to “contain” China in the traditional sense of the word, which would only provoke conflict without being in America's interest.
Instead, Washington should pursue a strategy of “bluntling” — one that uses its power and influence to prevent a country from dominating key regions or setting the rules for global governance. It is. This realist approach acknowledges that China's rise cannot be stopped, but it can be managed. The United States should work with allies and regional powers to ensure that Beijing's ambitions do not come at the expense of our security or that of our partners. By focusing on maintaining the balance of power, the United States can prevent Chinese domination without going overboard in futile containment efforts.
Blunting is not about imposing America's will on the world, but about preventing other powers from imposing their will. This strategy recognizes that the world order is changing and that the U.S. government's role should be one of careful management rather than active intervention. Realistic restraint means recognizing that the United States cannot and should not get involved in every conflict, nor can it dictate terms to every rising power. .
The end of American hegemony frees America from the yoke of global policing that has been to its detriment for far too long. A grand strategy of restraint would avoid the costly and unnecessary interventions that characterized much of post-Cold War foreign policy and prioritize America's core national interests. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate the dangers of overreach and the futility of trying to impose democratic values through military means.
But restraint is not isolationism. The United States still has vital interests that require engagement, particularly in key regions such as the Indo-Pacific and Europe. But engagement must be based on a sober assessment of the realistic limits of American power and influence. Realist theory argues that international relations are dominated by competition between states and that in a multipolar world the United States must choose its battles carefully, choosing to intervene only when its vital interests are at stake. I'm teaching you not to.
This strategic realignment will allow the United States to play a wiser role in world affairs—cooperating with allies when necessary, but not leading every attack. It is no longer tenable that instability anywhere in the world threatens U.S. security, nor is it acceptable that the United States alone should shoulder the burden of global governance.
A shift away from American hegemony opens the door to a more sustainable world order that reflects the multipolar character of contemporary international politics. This transition is a natural evolution of the international system, and the United States must adapt by adopting restraint and realism to guide its foreign policy.
In a more multipolar world order, smaller powers and regional actors will have greater agency, and multilateral cooperation will be driven by common interests rather than imposed norms. America has an opportunity to lead by example, not by force. By focusing on blunting the more extreme ambitions of illiberal powers like China, Washington could help create a more stable and just world.
The era of American dominance is over, but there's no need to worry about that. It is an opportunity to build a more just and prosperous international system, based on the realities of power politics and the recognition that restraint, not overreach, is the path to sustainable security.
Andrew Latham He is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and an adjunct fellow at Defense Priorities, Inc. in Washington, DC.
