Power Helps States to Survive in the International System - Essay Example

Hegemony is a system where the power of a single is exercised over other s in a confederacy. Hegemonic power has an important responsibility in upholding steadiness and direction in the world governance by its military supremacy that keeps the peace and discourages the challenger of the global order. The forces of hegemony in different parts of the world and especially in the Middle East region due to its potential if left unchecked. Syrian crisis is a good example of how hegemonic forces are played in in balancing between peace and security of a particular region. The chessboard of international power politics has already been tabled and all the major stakeholders are dying to have a lion share of the ongoing conflicts in the region that have huge stakes in international politics. The case of Syria For a long time, the Middle East has been a region associated with hegemonic forces. Human massacres, ethnic cleansing, physical destructions, and other gross human crimes in the face of international community characterize the region (John 11). The weakened populations are the subjects of regional dynasties, states, and powerful groups who control both the economic and political power over the years. The emerging geopolitical trends and geostrategic trends all speak about yet another bloody round of hegemony forces that keep on flexing their muscles in every opportunity After the chemical attach of the Syrian civilians in the wake of uprising in Syria, the U.S.A administration almost made up its mind to flex its military muscles in the region. The Obama administration had a strong urge to attack Syria but he had to take into consideration the power politics in the region before taking such a bold step (Keneth 2). The United States administration had to weigh the consequences of such a move and its impacts on the stability and their interest in the region. Despite opposition from various military heads, the Catholic pope and the United Nations Security Council, the Obama administration pushed forward it its bid to end the stalemate in the Syrian region. The Syrian uprising owed a lot to the uprising that toppled the government of Egypt since Syria has often had a love hate relationship with Egypt. The Assad government initially reacted positively by meeting some of the demands of the people but the demands were so much than he could bare as duration continued. The United States Policy The Washington has a lot of interest in gulf monarchies hence they always watch keenly for every move they take both economically and politically. If the current Syrian crisis is left unresolved, it’s possible that the Iranian threat would become a reality and a change of leadership in Syria would mean a political defeat for Iran and its loss of influence in the Gulf. The Obama administration has pursued a number of policies in their attempt to broker peace in Syria and ensure a democratic transition (Dietz 16). The Obama admiration at first demanded a political transition when he called the resignation of Syrian president al Assad by asserting that they call for a democratic transition. The united states have also advocated for an international diplomacy through the United Nations Security Council to condemn the Syrian government to end the bloodshed in their country. The United States supported the efforts to improve the international policy coordination to Syrian people end the stalemate that threaten peace and stability in the country. Through the united nation security council, the United States supported the Annan plan that had a roadmap for ending the crisis that rocked the Syrian republic. Despite these their numerous efforts, they have blamed Russia and China for sabotaging their peace efforts by failing to support such initiatives at the Security Council. They have blamed Russian and Chinese of vetoing the draft resolutions in the Security Council against the Assad regime thwarting the efforts to achieve peace in that region. In the year 2012, the United States government officials acknowledge providing the Syrian opposition with non-lethal assistance such as medical supplies and night vision goggles to enable them to escape the lethal attack from Assad police and the military (Mehdi 13). The American government is also on record for disrupting arms shipment to Syria in conjunction with regional partners and they are involved in contingency planning. The United States government is also said to be preparing a political transition in Syria even as the fighting continues so that it can ensure a sustainable peace in the region. The United States policy towards Syria is highly focused on the diplomatic and economic pressures on the Syrian regime as well as providing non-lethal good for the people to discourage more fights in the country. The United States does not want to topple that Assad government by force for fear that the al-Qaida may hide in the opposition and take the government of Syrian and use it for their own selfish groups. The American government repeatedly voiced concern for spreading arms of the opposition, as this may prove counterproductive if they fall in the wrong hands. This is the main reason for the unwillingness of the United States and its allies to support the opposition with the military hardware as they have done in some of the countries within the gulf region (Mehdi 11). Russian policy The relationship between Russia and Syria is a long-term relationship that has grown over half a century since Russia established its important naval base in the region. Russia had greatly expressed its resentment against the NATO push for international resolution in protecting the civilians in Libya and was greatly disappointed by the fall of Gadhafi government. The fall of Gadhafi government was a severe blow to Russia since they lost an important ally in the Mediterranean region that implied that their influence in the region reduced drastically (Bruce 21). In fear of losing her allies in the Syrian region, Russia decided to take more active steps and involve itself directly in solving the stalemate that threatens the ouster of al Assad. In order to prevent the repetition of the Syrian case, Russia strongly voiced its concern and openly opposed any international intervention and any destabilization of the regime and encourages the talks between the opposition and the government. Losing Syria to the west implied that the whole Middle East would be closed to the Russians Another reason for Russia strong support for the Syrian peace system is not to primarily protect the Assad regime but to prove to the world that its interest can also be taken into consideration in matters of international security issues. Russia is also sure that in the event of international military action, its investment in the country will be negatively affected hence it is advantageous when the chaos are stopped in the most amicable way. Russia thus gives the message that if Assad government leaves the office, she will be the major player in the new restructuring of the entering regime hence change is only possible through its approval. Russia also sees the limits of its power both in the global scale and in the Middle East through exerting its powerful influence in the region. In the economic scale, Syria is a big importer of military hardware from Russia since about 10% of Russian military exports are directed to Syria (Bruce, 13). Russia is also sure that in the event of regime change, their economic relationship with Syria may greatly change towards the west at their expense a situation that may put them in a bad economic outlook. China policy China is a big power broker and is seen supporting the Assad regime against any possible international intervention from the west. China together with Russia is on record refusing any intervention by the united nation security council to the Assad government. China and Russia are known to use their veto rights to block the efforts of the united nation security council to condemn Syria regime in their bid to protect their interest in the Middle East (Beyer 13). Hegemonic stability theory Hegemonic stability theory is a set of theories that are loosely related to one another in the control of the world power systems. The tools used by hegemons assist other countries both directly as tools of coercive economic diplomacy and indirectly decreasing domestic costs as they serve their interests. The hegemons poses a comparative advantage in certain types of goods and services and this provides a basis of producing goods that are more advanced and services in the future. The ability of the Hegemon is highly based on the technological advancement since it uses such a technology to produce more advanced military hardware to enable her extend her influence to other regions (Barder 21). The hegemons must posses a military strength in order to successfully exert its influence far and wide to other regions. This therefore implies that economically powerful but military weak cannot successfully establish itself as a Hegemon since she will not be in a position to express its military might successfully in the event of a crisis (Dietz 12). The political leaders of the hegemony are able to the military capabilities necessary to accomplish the task of influencing the manners in which major decisions are made. Their military power is important in influencing international political economy from potential adversary any time and thus a military power must have economic and political power. The potential hegemonic country must be ready and willing to bear the cost of maintaining the world economy even in difficult time like the time of war. In most cases, it has been found that hegemonic stability postulates that a preponderant country becomes a Hegemon with the aim of structuring the international economic system to its benefit. In case a Hegemon has the potential of enjoying economical advantages in the production of goods and services, it will favor a liberal market economy due to its numerous advantages. The Hegemon is usually the most efficient and technologically advanced country and is thus able to gain more profits in the liberal markets than other countries to support its authority over other states (Joseph 11). The Hegemon tries so much in its abilities to ensure the stability of the market system since it stands to gain in case of market stability and to lose in case of market turbulence. The hegemonic activity has a lot to contribute in the field of political economy as demonstrated by several studies. The two periods of highest economic growth of the international economy correspond to the eras of strong British and American economic and political hegemony as they managed to sustain their influence all over the world. The period that saw little economic growth especially between 1913 to 1945 include the two world wars, that further destabilized the world economic system as a result of political instability (Mosler 113). Some scholars also argue that the great depression of the 1930s was as a result of the American failure to assert hegemony leadership after Britain was no longer able to exert its hegemony power and sustain the pressures of the world (Mosler, 88). Studies also show that the presence of a Hegemon reduces the likelihood of world conflict by two thirds and the probability of disputes between countries by one third. It has also been shown that unipolar systems have less conflict than bipolar systems and this is evident since periods when the international power system was unipolar experienced more wars. On the other hand, the period when the word system was a bipolar experience less conflict. The development if nuclear weapons have escalated the idea of nuclear peace since it has the potential of destructing the world stability. The hegemonic states have the capability to monitor the development of nuclear weapons in different states to avoid the possibility of nuclear war thus interfering with the world stability (Dietz 14). The atomic arsenal is believed to have kept the United States stay at peace with its soviet union since they fully understand the impact of such moves. Since the nuclear attack on Japan, there are increasing fears on the possession of nuclear weapons since they are weapons of mass destruction. The possession of nuclear warheads by the hegemonies states is not an issue since they are expected to hold them responsible to control the world power. Any country that tries to possess such warheads are closely monitored by the hegemony since it can use it against its enemies or it can help its allies use it and injure the public (Joseph 13). The biggest problem between Syria and the western powers began when it was suspected that they are applying the use of chemical weapons in their defensive strategies to contain the rising opposition against the Assad regime. The hegemony is ready to take any necessary step to ensure that no country uses its weapons of mass destruction against the public no matter the situation. Any country that defies the warnings of the hegemony are subject to sanctions in order to reduce its power and authority in the way it related to other nations. The sanctions may include threatening to raise the trade barriers between it and other countries, regions or blocks in order to spoil the economy of the defiant state. Another option of the hegemony is based on the military action whereby they can decide to withdraw the military protection so that the defiant country remains viable to attack or they may threaten the defiant country with military action against them (Barder 12). When America realized that Syria had used chemical weapons against the public, the Obama administration threatened to apply military action against the Assad regime so that it stop using weapons of mass destruction against the public (Keneth 2). Such a warning acted as a wake up call for the Assad regime since there is no evidence of Assad uses such weapons of mass destruction against the public after uniting states threatening to apply military action in that country. In order to sustain the possibility of war arising, the United States have supported democracy only in some incidences and opposed democracy in some incidences. The hegemony will support democracy in the event of stability but will not support democracy in the presence of any movement that opposes them since they want to hold and retain the world power (Thomas 21). The hegemonic stability theory focuses on the notion of world leadership and the Hegemon nation reduces conflict in the interstate system by establishing acceptable norms of behavior by adjudicating international disputes. The Hegemon handles issues by enforcing rules and stabilize the status quo thus bringing order and peace in the global setup. Hegemon is thus the ability of the leadership of one state to exert pressure on another thus controlling most of the operations in that region (Thomas 18). Hegemonies have a great economic influence since they control raw materials, capital, and markets and can assist a state in its ability to punish its enemies and help its allies The Syrian crisis puts the hegemonic interest to the public limelight due to the nature they handled the situation to deal with the stalemate. While many may not understand the interest of the United States and other countries, it is clearly about the national interest of the hegemonies since they want to control the security situation in the region. The states seek to maintain consistent self-concepts, which give life to the normal foreign policy actions on matters of security. The event of the Rwandan genocide is still haunting the United States government and they may not be willing to see another incident like that happens again to the humanity (Mosley 54). This is because such an event can pose them as heartless hegemonies hence they are always willing to flex their military might. Hegemonic units like the United States are susceptible to the problem of shame and they would do whatever possible to avert it in the event it may arise (Mehdi 14). A Hegemon can use its authority to delegate duties to other interstates powers and this is clearly seen in the wake of the Arab springs. During the Arab springs, the United States took a low profile and let other countries like within the European Union to deal directly with such uprising. In the case of Syria, the United States decided not to use military power against Assad but struck a deal with Russia to handle the case of weapons of mass destruction Syrian to avoid cases of further use of such weapons. In conclusion, it is true that power helps states to survive in the internationals a system that is economically and politically controlled by the Hegemon. For a world economy to be stable, there must be a stabilizer that is able and willing to use its economic and military power to in balancing the equilibrium of peace and stability in the region. The hegemony is thus able to induce cooperation in the international system in reducing conflicts in regions that are threatened with war and restore humanity. In the case of Syria, the United States took a bold step in ensuring that the conflict experienced in that country does not lead to mass murders and possible execution of civilians. The United States used its hegemony powers to threaten the Assad regime of military action thus reducing the use of weapons of mass destructions against the innocent citizens. It also ensured that the Syrian regime face sanctions from her and its allies for gross violations of human rights in their country. In order to prevent the possible use of such weapons in the future, the United States struck a deal with Russia to ensure that such weapons of mass destruction are not used with excessive force to curb protest that resulted from political instability in the region. This is a good evidence that the weapons of mass destruction are totally discouraged by the hegemony to stabilize the world security systems since such weapons can reduce her flexibility in dealing with conflicts. Furthermore, through the hegemony power, peace and stability can be guaranteed in the face of international conflicts. The Hegemon strengthens its role throughout the world by advocating for liberalism and democracy as an individual and together with its allies. The Hegemon ensures that this uses and controls the world instrument like the united nations, international monetary fund and the world bank in order to express its influence far and wide in stabilizing the global economy and peace. The Hegemon must always posses the military dominance since she is the ultimate arbiter of disputes by use of military force whenever the need arises and this is clearly seen in the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Work Cited Buchs, Annet. The Resilience of Authoritarian Rule in Syria under Hafez and Bashad Al-Assad. 2009. GIGA Working Papers. Bruce, Maddy. The Arab League Comes Alive. Middle East Quarterly. Summer2012, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p71-78.  Beyer, Cornelia. Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower: A Synthetic Approach. International Relations,  2009; vol. 23, 3: pp. 411-427. Barder, Alexander. American Hegemony Comes Home: The Chilean Laboratory and the Neoliberalization of the United States. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political,  2013; vol. 38, 2: pp. 103-121. Dietz, Thomas. Normative power as hegemony. Cooperation and Conflict,  2013; vol. 48, 2: pp. 194-210. Joseph, Jonathan. Hegemony: A realistic Analysis. Routledge. 2002.Print. Mosler, David. Global America: Imposing Liberalism on a Recalcitrant World. Praeger. 2000. Print John, McHugo. Syria. Caught in a Trap. History Today.  2013, Vol. 63 Issue 7, p3-4 Kenneth, Walsh. The Evolution of a President. News Digital Weekly. 9/13/2013, Vol. 5 Issue 37, p11-11.  Mehdi, Hasan. Something must be done about Syria, the hawks cry. Well, Try Diplomacy. New Statesman. 9/13/2013, Vol. 142 Issue 5175 Thomas, Peter. Hegemony, passive revolution and the modern Prince. Thesis Eleven,  2013; vol. 117, 1: pp. 20-39. Read More