Chapter 3 Us Hegemony In World Politics

This chapter examines the nature, extent, and limitations of the dominance of the United States in world politics since the end of the Cold War. This period, characterized by the absence of a major rival to the US, is often referred to as an era of US dominance or a unipolar world.

The narrative begins by tracing the emergence of this new world order through key events like the First Gulf War and the US-led invasion of Iraq. To understand this phenomenon better, the chapter introduces the concept of **'hegemony'**.

Various dimensions of US dominance are explored, including its political, economic, and cultural aspects. The chapter also considers how India should approach its relationship with the US in this context and discusses potential challenges and limitations to American hegemony.

The attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September 2001 is considered a pivotal event that highlighted aspects of the post-Cold War global landscape and the challenges faced by the dominant power.

The stories of Ayesha (Iraq), Jabu (South Africa), and Andrei (Australia) illustrate how US hegemony, in its different forms, impacts individuals across the globe, even in seemingly unrelated situations. While their problems (losing a leg in war, parental pressure on career choice, cultural influence) seem distinct, they are all, in varying degrees, connected to the pervasive influence of the United States.

Although commonly referred to as 'America', it is important to remember that the United States of America is just one country in the continents of North and South America. The widespread use of 'America' to refer solely to the US is itself an example of the cultural hegemony discussed in the chapter.

Beginning Of The ‘New World Order’

The unexpected disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 fundamentally altered global power dynamics. With one superpower gone, the United States remained as the sole dominant power, its influence enhanced. While US hegemony became fully apparent later, some elements originated much earlier, back to the end of the Second World War in 1945.

A pivotal event marking the beginning of the 'new world order' was the **First Gulf War**. In August 1990, Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. After diplomatic efforts failed, the United Nations authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait – a decision made possible by the absence of a Soviet veto, unlike during the Cold War era. US President George H.W. Bush heralded this as the emergence of a 'new world order'.

A large international coalition of 34 countries, totaling 660,000 troops, was assembled. However, the military operation, code-named **'Operation Desert Storm'**, was overwhelmingly led and dominated by the US. An American General, Norman Schwarzkopf, commanded the coalition, with nearly 75% of the forces being American. Despite Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's defiant rhetoric, Iraqi forces were swiftly defeated and forced to withdraw from Kuwait.

This image of destroyed vehicles on the 'Highway of Death' illustrates the intense military engagement during the First Gulf War. Some reports and commentators suggested that retreating Iraqi forces, including civilians, were deliberately targeted, raising questions about war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention.

The First Gulf War showcased the significant **technological superiority** of the US military. The prominent use of precision-guided munitions, or 'smart bombs', led some observers to label it a 'computer war'. Extensive live television coverage turned it into a 'video game war' for viewers globally.

Surprisingly, the US reportedly profited from the war, receiving more financial contributions from allies like Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia than its military expenditures for the conflict.

The Clinton Years

Despite the Gulf War victory, George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 presidential election to **Bill Clinton** of the Democratic Party. Clinton, re-elected in 1996, served for eight years (1993-2001). During his presidency, the US often appeared more focused on domestic issues and less intensely involved in traditional 'hard politics' of military power and security on the global stage. Foreign policy attention often shifted to 'soft issues' such as democracy promotion, climate change, and world trade.

Nevertheless, the US demonstrated its willingness to use military force on occasion during the Clinton years:

• In 1999, NATO forces, led by the US, conducted air bombardments against Yugoslavia for over two months in response to actions against the Albanian population in Kosovo. This intervention led to the fall of Slobodan Milosevic's government and the deployment of a NATO peacekeeping force.
• In response to the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, attributed to Al-Qaeda, President Clinton ordered **'Operation Infinite Reach'**. This involved cruise missile strikes on suspected Al-Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Notably, these strikes were carried out without seeking UN authorization or strictly adhering to international law, and some alleged civilian facilities were hit. This action is seen in retrospect as an early indication of the US approach to counter-terrorism that would become more pronounced later.

9/11 And The ‘Global War On Terror’

On **11 September 2001**, the United States experienced the most severe attack on its soil since its founding. Nineteen hijackers associated with Al-Qaeda seized four commercial airplanes. Two were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Centre towers in New York, causing their collapse. A third hit the Pentagon near Washington, D.C. The fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers reportedly resisted the hijackers, likely preventing a strike on another symbolic target like the Capitol building. These events became known as "9/11" (following the American convention of writing the month first).

This image shows how the devastating events of 9/11 were reported by The New York Times the following day, conveying the scale and impact of the attacks.

The attacks tragically killed nearly three thousand people. Their impact on the American psyche was profound, often compared to historical events like the burning of Washington D.C. in 1814 or the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, though the death toll surpassed previous attacks on US soil.

Under President **George W. Bush**, son of the former President, the US response was swift and forceful. Bush adopted a harder line on US interests compared to Clinton. As part of the **'Global War on Terror'**, the US launched **'Operation Enduring Freedom'**. This operation targeted those believed responsible for 9/11, primarily Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime sheltering them in Afghanistan.

The Taliban regime was quickly overthrown, but remnants of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban proved resilient, continuing to pose a threat and carry out attacks against Western targets.

In the context of this 'War on Terror', US forces conducted arrests globally, often without consulting or informing the governments of the countries where arrests took place. Detainees were transported to secret prisons in various locations. Some were held at the US Naval base in **Guantanamo Bay, Cuba**. These prisoners were controversially denied the protection of international law, the laws of their own countries, or even US law. Access, including for representatives from the UN, was restricted.

These cartoons offer critical perspectives on aspects of US power and policies in the post-9/11 era, raising questions about human rights issues in detention and the broad reach of American military influence globally.

The Iraq Invasion

On 19 March 2003, the US launched an invasion of Iraq, codenamed **'Operation Iraqi Freedom'**. This action proceeded despite the UN Security Council refusing to issue a mandate for the invasion. A 'coalition of the willing', consisting of over forty other countries, joined the US in this endeavor.

The stated primary justification for the invasion was to prevent Iraq from possessing **weapons of mass destruction (WMD)**. However, no conclusive evidence of WMD programs was ever found in Iraq after the invasion. This absence of WMD led to speculation about alternative motives for the invasion, such as gaining control over Iraq's vast oil reserves and installing a government friendly to US interests.

While the government of Saddam Hussein was quickly toppled, the US military was unable to establish full control or 'pacify' Iraq. Instead, the occupation ignited a widespread insurgency against the US-led forces.

The conflict resulted in significant casualties. The US military lost over 3,000 personnel, but Iraqi casualties were considerably higher. Conservative estimates suggest at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the period following the US-led invasion.

The Iraq invasion is now widely seen, in many crucial aspects, as both a **military and political failure** for the United States.

This cartoon implies that the US (represented as a soldier with a bomb) acts unilaterally on the global stage, often disregarding the authority or mandates of international organizations like the UN (represented as a bird flying away from the soldier).

What Does Hegemony Mean?

Politics, at its core, is about power – the ability to gain and retain influence and control. This applies to individuals, groups, and states in world affairs. To understand global politics, it's essential to analyze the distribution of power among nations.

During the Cold War (1945-1991), power was primarily distributed between two blocs led by the US and the Soviet Union, a system described as **bipolarity**. The collapse of the Soviet Union left the US as the single dominant power. This post-Cold War international system, where one state is overwhelmingly powerful, is often termed **unipolarity** or, more accurately, based on classical concepts, **hegemony**.

The term 'hegemony' originates from classical Greek, signifying the leadership or predominance of one state over others, like Athens' position among ancient Greek city-states. Applied to contemporary world politics and the US, the concept of hegemony can be understood in three distinct ways:

Hegemony As Hard Power

This refers to hegemony based on **military superiority**. The US possesses military capabilities that are both absolute and relative.

• Absolute: The US military can strike targets anywhere on the planet with accuracy and lethality in real time, while minimizing risk to its own forces.
• Relative: No other power possesses military capabilities that are remotely comparable to the US. The US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries combined, and a significant portion of its budget goes into military research and development, creating a substantial technological gap.

While formidable in conquering, deterring, and punishing adversaries, the US military has shown limitations in **policing occupied territories**, as evidenced by the insurgency in Iraq. Nevertheless, military dominance forms the bedrock of contemporary US power.

This map illustrating the areas of responsibility of the US military commands worldwide demonstrates the truly global reach of American military 'hard power'.

Hegemony As Structural Power

This understanding of hegemony relates to the dominance of a state in shaping the **global economy**. An open world economy, crucial for global trade and prosperity, requires a dominant power (hegemon) to establish and maintain its fundamental rules and structures. The hegemon benefits most from this system but also bears the costs of maintaining it, sometimes allowing competitors to benefit disproportionately.

Hegemony as structural power is demonstrated by the US providing **global public goods** – goods available to all, where consumption by one person doesn't reduce availability for others (like fresh air or roads). In the global economy, examples include:

• Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs): The essential sea routes for merchant shipping. The US Navy guarantees freedom of navigation in international waters, underwriting the law of the sea, a role previously played by the British Navy.
• The Internet: Originating as a US military research project (ARPANET in the 1950s, not 1950), the internet relies on a global satellite network, much of which is US-owned.

The US economic presence is global, spanning all sectors and technologies. The US accounts for a substantial portion of the world economy (around 21% of global GDP) and world trade (around 14%). US firms consistently rank among the top players globally across various industries.

This economic dominance is inseparable from the US capacity to shape the global economic structure. The post-WWII **Bretton Woods system**, which established institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and later the WTO, was set up under US influence and continues to form the basis of the world economy. These institutions can be seen as products of US structural hegemony.

A cultural example of US structural power is the **Master's in Business Administration (MBA)** degree. The concept of formal university training for business management is uniquely American. The first business school and MBA courses originated in the US in the late 19th/early 20th century, with the first MBA outside the US appearing only in 1950. Today, the MBA is a universally recognized and prestigious qualification, illustrating how US ideas and institutions have shaped global educational and professional norms.

This chart shows the immense scale of US military spending relative to other countries, even combining the next 12 largest budgets, highlighting US 'hard power'.

This image symbolizes the global economic influence of the US dollar, reflecting the structural power the US holds in the international financial system.

Hegemony As Soft Power

Beyond military and economic might, US hegemony includes an **ideological and cultural dimension**, often termed **'soft power'**. This is the ability to influence outcomes through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion.

This form of hegemony involves the capacity to 'manufacture consent' – shaping the beliefs, values, and aspirations of others to align with those of the dominant power. This is achieved when the dominant state's ideas about what is desirable or successful become widely accepted, even by those who are less powerful.

The US possesses significant soft power due to its pervasive **cultural presence**. Ideas about the 'good life', personal success, dreams, and lifestyle are often heavily influenced by American culture, media, and practices. American culture is seen by many as attractive or 'seductive', making it a powerful tool of influence. Over time, this cultural influence can become so ingrained that it is barely noticed, like a part of the natural environment.

A classic example is the popularity of **blue jeans**. During the Cold War, for young people in the Soviet Union, blue jeans became a potent symbol of freedom, rebellion, and the desirable 'good life' associated with the West, even costing a significant amount of money. The US, through a seemingly simple cultural product, was able to create a generational connection and aspiration that undermined the Soviet system's own narrative.

During the Cold War, while military hard power was often stalemated, the US achieved notable victories in the realms of structural and soft power. The global economy remained capitalist despite the Soviet alternative, and American cultural influence, like the appeal of blue jeans, successfully permeated societies within the Soviet bloc.

These images from Jakarta illustrate how elements of American popular culture, such as global fast-food chains, fashion trends (like blue jeans), and brand logos, are widely present around the world, demonstrating the reach of US 'soft power'.

Constraints On American Power

While US hegemony appears formidable, historical patterns suggest that dominant powers often face constraints, particularly from within. There are several potential checks on American power:

1. Institutional Checks: The US state's internal structure includes a system of separation of powers and checks and balances among the executive, legislative (Congress), and judicial branches. This institutional architecture can limit the executive branch's ability to exercise unchecked military power.
2. Societal Checks: The open nature of American society provides a domestic constraint. Public opinion, a skeptical political culture, scrutiny by the mass media (despite potential biases), and the influence of social movements and NGOs can generate opposition to government policies, including overseas military actions, limiting the scope of US power in the long term.
3. International Alliance Checks: While there is no global government to formally limit US power, key international alliances, particularly **NATO**, can potentially moderate US actions. The US has a vested interest in maintaining strong alliances with other democracies and market economies, which may provide allied states leverage to influence US decisions.

Although these constraints seemed less effective immediately after 9/11, there are indications that they are gradually regaining influence.

These photographs from an exhibition highlighting the human costs of the Iraq War demonstrate how public dissent and activism within the US can act as a constraint on government policy and potentially limit the exercise of US power.

India’s Relationship With The Us

During the Cold War, India largely maintained distance from the US, adhering to its policy of non-alignment and fostering a close relationship with the Soviet Union. The collapse of the USSR left India in a less certain international environment. However, this period also coincided with India's decision to liberalize its economy and integrate with the global market.

India's economic liberalization and subsequent strong growth rates have made it an attractive economic partner for many countries, including the United States.

Two relatively new factors have significantly shaped Indo-US relations in recent years:

• Technological Links: The US is a major market for India's software exports (absorbing about 65%). A significant number of technical professionals of Indian origin work in the US tech sector, including in prominent companies like Boeing (estimated 35% of technical staff) and Silicon Valley (around 300,000 Indians). Indian-Americans are also prominent in launching high-tech startups (around 15%).
• Indian-American Diaspora: The large and successful Indian-American community in the US plays a role in strengthening ties and fostering mutual understanding.

In this era of US hegemony, India faces the complex task of determining its relationship with the US. The debate within India centers around three potential strategic approaches:

1. Strategy 1: Maintain Distance / Strengthen Self-Reliance: Analysts who prioritize military power are wary of close ties with the US. They advocate for India maintaining its independence from Washington and focusing on building its own comprehensive national power (military, economic, political strength) to secure its interests.
2. Strategy 2: 'Bandwagoning' / Leverage Opportunities: Some analysts see the growing convergence of interests between India and the US as a historic opportunity. They propose that India should strategically align with the US and operate within the hegemonic system to gain maximum benefits in trade, technology, and investment. They argue that opposing the US would be counterproductive for India's long-term interests.
3. Strategy 3: Lead a Coalition of Developing Countries: A third perspective suggests that India should take the initiative in forming a coalition of countries from the developing world. The aim would be for this collective group to gain power over time and potentially influence or modify the dominant behavior of the hegemon.

Given the complexity of the relationship and the global landscape, it is likely that India will need to employ a combination of these strategies.

Extracts from a Lok Sabha debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal:

These quotes from Indian politicians (Manmohan Singh, Basu Deb Acharia, B. C. Khanduri) reflect different viewpoints on India's engagement with the US, particularly in the context of the nuclear deal. These perspectives align broadly with the three strategies discussed: Dr. Manmohan Singh's view reflects leveraging opportunities within the existing global order; Shri Basu Deb Acharia's stance expresses concern about compromising India's independent foreign policy (related to maintaining distance/leading alternative forums); and Maj. Gen. (Retd.) B. C. Khanduri's statement acknowledges US power but also emphasizes India's emergence as a power, suggesting a relationship based on mutual respect while protecting national security (a nuanced mix of strategies 1 and 2).

How Can Hegemony Be Overcome?

The question of how long US hegemony will last and how it might be overcome is a central one in contemporary world politics. Historically, dominant powers have eventually declined, often due to internal factors or the rise of competing powers.

Unlike domestic politics, international politics lacks a central world government or formal authority to constrain the military power of states. While international law exists, including laws of war, states do not rely solely on it for security. Therefore, escaping war or hegemony through formal international regulation is challenging.

In the short term, a military challenge to US hegemony is unlikely. No single power is strong enough to militarily balance the US. Furthermore, forming a military coalition against the US is difficult due to existing differences among potential challenger states like China, India, and Russia.

States facing US hegemony have several strategic options:

1. 'Bandwagoning': This strategy involves aligning with or accommodating the hegemon to maximize benefits. It suggests that states should take advantage of the opportunities provided by the hegemonic system (e.g., access to trade, technology, investment) rather than opposing it, as resistance might be futile and costly.
2. 'Hiding': This strategy involves keeping a low profile and staying as far as possible from the hegemon's attention. Countries like China, Russia, and the EU have, at times, adopted aspects of this approach. However, 'hiding' is arguably more feasible for smaller states and less sustainable for large powers or blocs over a significant period.

Some analysts propose that resistance to US hegemony may come not from other states, but from **non-state actors**. Challenges could emerge in the economic and cultural spheres, driven by a combination of:

• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
• Social movements.
• Public opinion.
• Critical sections of the media, intellectuals, artists, and writers.

These diverse actors can form transnational networks, potentially even collaborating with dissenting individuals and groups within the United States, to criticize and resist US policies.

The concept of the 'global village' suggests that in today's interconnected world, we are all neighbors under the dominance of a powerful state ('headman'). Since leaving this 'village' (the world) is not an option, the only available response to intolerable hegemonic behavior is resistance.

WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH US ABOUT HEGEMONY?

History suggests that **hegemony is not a permanent condition**. While it may seem overwhelming at its peak, dominant powers eventually face decline in their relative power. The 'balance of power' dynamic in international politics, where states are wary of a single state becoming too powerful, tends to reduce the hegemon's influence over time.

Historical examples include the predominance of France under Louis XIV (1660-1713) and the global maritime empire of Britain (1860-1910). In both cases, other powers eventually rose to challenge or contest the hegemon's position. This historical pattern suggests that new great powers or coalitions could emerge in the future, potentially leading to a decline in the relative capabilities of the United States.