role of the United States as a global hegemonic power. Agreement AO1 the USA has faced difficulties in wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and US soft power has also been weakened by the ‘war on terror’ and the extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay incidents AO2 A counter-argument to the dominance of US military power could be built on the reduced significance of hard power in global politics, this may be judged as showing diminished hegemony. AO3 therefore US hard power was discredited in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a growing view that soft power is becoming more significant and as this is not an approach adopted by the US, if it continues to grow it could signal a weakening of its hegemony AO1 the economic model of the USA has been challenged by the global financial crisis. China, in particular, has grown at a remarkable rate and is expected to overtake the US economy within a decade or so. There has been a rise of the BRIC states AO2 The rise of BRIC states seems to challenge economic, and even structural, dominance and the USA has found that it is unable to tackle the global financial crisis alone. Economic competitors have seen significant growth, suggesting that US economic dominance may be weakening AO3 Therefore this may be judged to indicate diminished hegemony, and the fact that China is continuing to grow in importance and that the financial crisis is still not totally resolved, this may lead to further weakening of the US grip on power AO1 there have been a number of areas where the USA has been unable to exert significant political influence, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian support for Assad in Syria, Chinese ambitions in Asia AO2 Failure of the USA to exert influence in numerous areas appears to challenge the idea of US influence, as US hard power failed against opponents using guerrilla tactics in asymmetric war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Global criticism of US tactics increased as did a wider criticism of the tactics used in the ‘War on Terror’, including extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay. AO3 This therefore may be judged to indicate diminished hegemony as the US has been fundamentally weakened and discredited by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and will find it far harder to successfully engage in similar military action in the future. AO1 the actions of North Korea and Iranian nuclear ambitions mean that the US has faced new challengers, including the EU, as a collection of states, a resurgent Russia and a growing China. AO2 Chinese military expenditure and economic growth alongside soft power development means that it is becoming a significant challenge to US hegemony. The EU has a growing involvement in foreign policy areas, as well as an economic strength and soft power ability, and also challenges US hegemony. A resurgent Russia, able to resist US pressure in areas such as Crimea and Syria also suggests a weakening US position, AO3 Consequently long-term US hegemony, measured in a number of ways has been questioned on several occasions and will, inevitably, remain a topic of debate. Loss of military, economic and structural dominance may be judged to signify lost or, at least, diminished hegemony. AO1 the USA has a global military reach and accounts for approximately 50% of world military spending. AO2 Military power may be central in defining hegemony and the US has had a dominant role in intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. AO3 therefore this is a clear indication that the US remains the global hegemon, despite challengers that do not have the same power to effectively challenge, and so the US will continue to be major force in deciding on foreign military intervention AO1 the USA has structural power in most major international organisations, from the Security Council to G7, the IMF AO2 Structural power may be central in defining hegemony and the US has clearly been influential in effective change in these major international institutions. The US is a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto power, member of the elite G7 organisation and has share dominance in the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the ability to select the World Bank leader. AO3 consequently structural challengers may not be deemed significant enough to challenge hegemony and the US has had significant influence in these major structural institutions for a considerable number of years, it seems unlikely that this will change. AO1 the USA remains the world’s largest economy and has established the dominant economic model globally AO2 Economic power may be central in defining hegemony and the US has a clear hold on global affairs as the global economic system is based on a US model, and as the US dominates the IMF and the World Bank, which make key decisions on lending policy etc., and the US has a number of powerful multinational companies globally. AO3 therefore economic challengers may not be deemed significant enough to challenge hegemony. AO1 the US has influence and global reach, which impacts on most countries and global issues, for example nuclear proliferation. AO2 influence and reach may be assessed to be central in hegemonic dominance and it is clear that the US does not have any significant challengers to its power base as the leader of the free world. The US is at the heart of numerous global issues such as nuclear proliferation (Iran and North Korea), global warming and conflict in areas such as Syria. AO3 thus the rise of other states may not be deemed significant enough to have diminished US dominance in any of these areas.