Hegemony Re-re-revisited

In my final Over the Horizon column at World Politics Review, I think some thoughts about the future of American hegemony:

The most important step for the U.S. to take is to gain the acquiescence, grudging or not, of most of the rest of the major international players in modern global society. Accommodating Indian, Chinese or even Russian concerns within the U.S.-managed global framework demonstrates the utility and flexibility of that system, and reinforces the sense that the United States plays a unique role. The strength and resilience of a system — and when we speak of U.S. hegemony, we really mean the system of norms and institutions that the United States has established — depends more on its ability to co-opt competitors than to crush or isolate them. This hardly means that the United States must concede to every demand from every competitor, but we shouldn’t think of the need for careful diplomacy as weakness; rather, the ability to handle problems diplomatically reflects strength.

As I've suggested before, I think that the strength of CS-21 is that it gets at the core of this understanding of American hegemony; that a Pax Americana is about the establishment of a system of rules and relationships that broadly benefits the United States while also winning the support or acquiescence of other major players. Incidentally, I cannot express how grateful I am to the editors at World Politics Review for giving me the opportunity to write Over the Horizon for a year and a half. I found the experience rewarding and productive in almost every way.

 Speaking of extra-curricular activities, the newest Foreign Entanglements takes on Iranian domestic politics:
 
I am looking to push Foreign Entanglements in a more maritime direction in the next few weeks; with luck we'll soon have Andrew Erickson on. I would also love some recommendations as to good, interesting interlocutors on maritime and defense affairs.